One of the first questions many people ask when considering financial advice is simple: how much does a financial advisor cost?
If you’ve wondered how financial planning fees work — and why the answers can vary so much — you’re not alone. Financial planning isn’t a standard product. The cost depends on the services you need, how an advisor charges, and how involved they are in your financial situation.
For households working with a full-service financial advisor, fees generally fall within a fairly consistent range depending on the structure of the relationship.
Most financial advisors use one (or more) of the following pricing models.
| Pricing Model | Typical Cost |
| Assets Under Management (AUM) | ~0.50% – 1.25% of assets annually |
| Flat Annual / Retainer Fee | $2,500 – $7,500+ per year |
| Hourly Financial Advice | $150 – $400+ per hour |
| One-Time Financial Plan | $2,500 – $7,500 |
| Hybrid Model | % of assets + $1,500–$5,000 planning fee |
Financial advisor fees typically reflect the scope of services being provided, which may include investment management, retirement planning, tax coordination, asset protection, and ongoing financial guidance.
(*Sources: Kitces Research; SmartAsset; Wealthtender)
Most advisory firms do not rely on a single pricing method. In fact, industry research shows that many firms use several fee structures simultaneously, depending on the client relationship and services provided.
| Fee Structure | % of Advisors Using This Method* | Notes |
| Assets Under Management (AUM) | ~86% (primary method) | Dominant model for ongoing investment management |
| Flat / Retainer Fees | ~39% (used in some capacity) | Often paired with AUM or used for planning-only clients |
| Hourly Fees | ~40% (used in some capacity) | Common for project-based or advice-only engagements |
| Hybrid (AUM + Planning Fee) | Significant and growing | Many firms use more than one pricing method |
Percentages do not total 100% because firms may use multiple methods. (Source: Kitces Research)
While firms may use more than one structure, most advisory relationships ultimately fall into one of these core pricing models.
The most common pricing model in financial planning is the AUM fee.
Under this system, clients pay a percentage of the assets the advisor manages, usually billed quarterly. Although fees vary by firm and complexity, most full-service financial advisors charge between 0.50% and 1.25% annually, with approximately 1.0% often cited as a long-term industry median. (Sources: Kitces Research; Smart Asset)
This model aligns an advisor’s compensation with portfolio value and growth, which many clients find intuitive and easy to understand.
Some advisors charge a flat annual fee, also known as a retainer, regardless of asset size.
This approach is common when:
While this model has gained popularity, research indicates that only a small number of advisory firms rely solely on retainer pricing as their main source of income.
For clients seeking limited or specific advice, some advisors offer:
(*Sources: SmartAsset; Wealthtender; eMoney Advisor)
These arrangements can work well for:
However, they often lack the ongoing accountability and proactive guidance that many families ultimately want.
A growing number of firms use what’s commonly referred to as a hybrid pricing model.
In this structure, clients pay:
This approach reflects a broader truth about modern financial planning: the value extends well beyond portfolio management alone.
AUM Fee Typically Covers
Planning Fee Typically Covers
Hybrid pricing allows firms to clearly distinguish — and communicate — what clients are paying for rather than bundling all services into a single percentage.
Most full-service financial advisors charge between 0.50% and 1.25% of assets annually under an AUM model, though fees may vary based on portfolio size and complexity.
Industry studies suggest that approximately 1% of assets annually has traditionally been a common fee level for many advisory relationships, although pricing models vary widely.
Some advisors offer hourly financial planning, typically costing between $150 and $400+ per hour, depending on their experience and the complexity of the advice.
No. Advisors may charge using various structures, including AUM fees, flat planning fees, hourly advice, one-time planning engagements, or hybrid pricing models.
Fees often depend on the scope of services, the complexity of the client’s financial situation, whether investment management is included, and whether the relationship is ongoing.
| Pricing Model | Typical Cost Range | Best For |
| AUM Fee | ~0.50% – 1.25% annually | Ongoing investment management & planning |
| Flat / Retainer Fee | $2,500 – $7,500+ per year | Planning without asset management |
| Hourly Planning | $150 – $400+ per hour | Specific questions or one-time advice |
| Stand-Alone Financial Plan | $2,500 – $7,500 | One-time roadmap or second opinion |
| Hybrid (AUM + Planning Fee) | % of assets + $1,500–$5,000+ planning fee | Deep planning + active portfolio oversight |
| If You're Looking For... | Most Likely Fit |
| Investment management + planning | AUM or Hybrid |
| Advice only (no asset transfer) | Flat or Hourly |
| One-time clarity or second opinion | Stand-alone plan |
| Ongoing strategy & accountability | Hybrid or Retainer |
The best pricing model isn’t about being cheaper. It’s about being aligned with the level of service and engagement you want.
For many people exploring financial advice for the first time, pricing naturally raises another question: what does an ongoing financial planning relationship actually involve?
While each firm approaches this differently, comprehensive planning relationships typically include:
Since financial situations change over time, many households prefer an ongoing advisory relationship rather than a one-time financial plan.
While pricing structures vary across the industry, many advisory firms ultimately choose a model that reflects how they deliver financial planning and investment advice.
At Spaugh Dameron Tenny, we believe financial planning works best when it’s ongoing, proactive, and integrated into your financial life, not delivered as a one-time document.
That’s why we use a hybrid pricing approach.
Rather than bundling everything into a single fee, our structure separates the two core components of a comprehensive financial relationship:
As advisors operating under a fiduciary standard, our responsibility is to provide guidance that aligns with our clients’ best interests across their financial lives.
Our clients come to us not only for portfolio oversight but also for decision-making support across retirement planning, tax strategy, cash-flow decisions, equity compensation, charitable planning, and estate coordination.
By pricing planning explicitly, we’re able to provide:
While no pricing model is right for everyone, we’ve found this structure works best for clients who value clarity around fees and an ongoing advisory relationship that evolves over time.
• Kitces Research — How Financial Advisors Charge for Their Services
• SmartAsset — How Much Does a Financial Advisor Cost?
• eMoney Advisor — Pros and Cons of Popular Financial Planning Fee Structures
• Wealthtender — How Much Does a Financial Advisor Cost?
• Retirement Living Sourcebook — Fee-for-Service vs Percentage of Assets
CRN202903-10762496
Shane Tenny, CFP®, is Managing Partner of Spaugh Dameron Tenny, where he helps high-net-worth individuals and families navigate complex financial decisions with clarity, structure, and confidence. Since joining the firm in 2000, Shane has worked with clients through major financial transitions, including career changes, liquidity events, retirement, and multigenerational planning. His approach combines comprehensive financial planning with a focus on behavioral finance, including advanced studies in Behavioral Economics through the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Shane is the author of Your Next Million, former host of the Prosperous Doc® Podcast, and a nationally recognized financial advisor, speaker, and educator.
/Logo%20Horizontal%20(4).png?width=2000&name=Logo%20Horizontal%20(4).png)