5 ms·

There’s a lot that can be better here and Robinhood’s approach to getting a foothold has been smart. I use Fidelity for everything, but their software is medio

There’s a lot that can be better here and Robinhood’s approach to getting a foothold has been smart. I use Fidelity for everything, but their software is mediocre at best. I hear vanguard is worse. The regular banks are ten times worse than fidelity for basic actions. Other startups that have tried to make this better (Simple Bank comes to mind, but there are a couple of others) typically sell out or only focus on basic banking which is not helpful. Robinhood has better software and is positioning themselves to be a serious player long term.

jjeaff 6y ago
I think vanguard is perfect for the type of investor they attract. I probably log in to my vanguard 2 or 3 times a year. It is set to autodraft from my bank account and buy index funds every month and reinvest the dividends. So it is set it and forget it. A slick interface and UI team that is trying to figure out ways to increase user engagement is just asking for your users to get in there and gamble away their retirement savings.
- bisrig 6y ago
  Agree completely. I think Vanguard's UI is trying to send the message "if you're logging in you're doing it wrong".
  - lukewrites 6y ago
    I agree with you both. I'd be worried if Vanguard suddenly became like Robinhood. There's a new version of the Vanguard app on the App Store called "Beacon" that includes a very useful visual overhaul (account balances & performance are front and center) but keeps that wonderful Vanguard focus on, well, staying the course and not much else.
toomuchtodo 6y ago
I have Fidelity as well and prefer their iOS app (at a glance asset overview) and Active Trader Pro Mac client (options trading) to Robinhood. Different tools for different tastes.
- fossuser 6y ago
  Thanks - I'll check out the Mac Client. The iOS app is okay, but I think it's extremely slow and a lot of things require the web UI (which has tons of buried menus and hard to find features).
  - xzel 6y ago
    Ah someone mentioned Active Trader, which I think is pretty decent. If you're trading a lot look into Interactive Brokers. I think they're still top of the line for publicly offered trading.
basch 6y ago
I'd say "simpler interface" rather than better software. Unless youve seen under the hood of Schwab/TD and Fidelity. I would expect, in some sense that Robinhood has cleaner aspects because of less legacy, but its also may be much less powerful and robust.
outworlder 6y ago
> I hear vanguard is worse That might be by design. Vanguard is best used for funds(their index funds are nice). They don't really want you actively trading or speculating (see quotes by the founder). Tastyworks has better software for options. TD Ameritrade also has ThinkOrSwim which is pretty good overall. None of those can hold a candle to Robinhood's (perceived!) simplicity - even though I do think it's TOO simple.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I think 'too simple' is like what some search company CEO said to Larry Page about page rank being 'too effective' when Larry/Sergey were trying to license it to him before starting Google (people won't stay on the search portal to look at ads because they find their result too quickly). It's a lame excuse. None of those old search companies exist anymore. If you want to drive most users to just use index funds you can have great software that does that while also having great software that allows users to do everything else they may want to do (like have a checking account, wire money to other banks, automatically invest, etc.). Having shitty software and then pretending it's 'by design' is just a lazy justification. If Robinhood can build up a userbase by focusing on a neglected area they can expand and take over everyone. Their downward pressure on fees is already a win for users, if they're able to get through growing pains (unacceptable downtime/scale issues) I don't see why they can't be as big as Fidelity. I don't know if their software is actually that good, but there's definitely an opening here for someone that can get a foothold.
  - outworlder 6y ago
    > I think 'too simple' is like what some search company CEO said to Larry Page about page rank being 'too effective' This is fine for search results. It is NOT fine for complex financial instruments where people can lose money. There's only so much you can 'simplify'. In this particular case, you can only make the UI itself simpler and easier to understand and operate. They can't make options trading itself any simpler. In other words, they can't make the domain itself any simpler by just throwing UX at it. Specifically, they can't make it any simpler by hiding information. The information is needed. This is why other trading platforms look 'busy'. Because trading options is not simple. Pretending that they are only lead to losses.
subsubzero 6y ago
I would choose Schwab over Robinhood any day of the week. I used robinhood and its data/metrics with stocks was extremely lacking and un-sophisticated. In addition order fulfilled timing was slow, I would never trade large amounts of stock with the app. Its all showy UI and bright colors. Which is fine as it seems to be getting alot of users using that method and the idea of "why use your Dads/Moms trading stock trading platform"?
- outworlder 6y ago
  > I would choose Schwab over Robinhood any day of the week Don't you have to prove to them that you actually know something about options before they let you trade? Robinhood... you check a box.
  - wtf_is_up 6y ago
    Not really. You ask for level 1-4 options trading and they have you select from a dropdown how many years experience you have. It gets approved quickly. I've done this on TDA, IBKR, Merrill Edge.
  - icedchai 6y ago
    All brokerages are like that. Back in the early 2000's, when I first enabled options trading, I had to fill out a paper form. This was also mostly just checking a box. If you could put a stamp on an envelope, you were qualified to trade options.
- PascLeRasc 6y ago
  I have a Schwab account, but it really bothers me that they're constantly trying to push their services like financial planning or investment advisors. Even if you look for target-date funds they'll hide the index one and push the expensive active ones. Compared to their website Robinhood is calm and minimalist, at least in my opinion.
icelancer 6y ago
TD Ameritrade and thinkorswim (their client they bought out) are both quite good. But not great for novice investors, which is where Robinhood crushed them. I think it's a net positive thing for people despite the doom and gloom stories we hear.
tzone 6y ago
I don't know, Vanguard is pretty good for what its supposed to be used for. You can get money in and out real fast. Even very large sums of money. You can trade without waiting for full settlement and all that, to make all the proper large rebalancing trades quickly without losses. You can have all your retirement accounts in it and tax management and integration works well. Their flows are all pretty smooth, you really don't need slick UI to make 3-4 trades a month at most. Of course you do need slicker UI when you are essentially offering an online casino to your users. Nice colors, engaging UI, etc is important to keep your audience entertained and to have them roll the dice more often.

jjeaff 6y ago

I think vanguard is perfect for the type of investor they attract. I probably log in to my vanguard 2 or 3 times a year. It is set to autodraft from my bank account and buy index funds every month and reinvest the dividends. So it is set it and forget it. A slick interface and UI team that is trying to figure out ways to increase user engagement is just asking for your users to get in there and gamble away their retirement savings.

bisrig 6y ago
Agree completely. I think Vanguard's UI is trying to send the message "if you're logging in you're doing it wrong".
- lukewrites 6y ago
  I agree with you both. I'd be worried if Vanguard suddenly became like Robinhood. There's a new version of the Vanguard app on the App Store called "Beacon" that includes a very useful visual overhaul (account balances & performance are front and center) but keeps that wonderful Vanguard focus on, well, staying the course and not much else.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

I have Fidelity as well and prefer their iOS app (at a glance asset overview) and Active Trader Pro Mac client (options trading) to Robinhood. Different tools for different tastes.

fossuser 6y ago
Thanks - I'll check out the Mac Client. The iOS app is okay, but I think it's extremely slow and a lot of things require the web UI (which has tons of buried menus and hard to find features).
- xzel 6y ago
  Ah someone mentioned Active Trader, which I think is pretty decent. If you're trading a lot look into Interactive Brokers. I think they're still top of the line for publicly offered trading.

basch 6y ago

I'd say "simpler interface" rather than better software. Unless youve seen under the hood of Schwab/TD and Fidelity. I would expect, in some sense that Robinhood has cleaner aspects because of less legacy, but its also may be much less powerful and robust.

outworlder 6y ago

> I hear vanguard is worse That might be by design. Vanguard is best used for funds(their index funds are nice). They don't really want you actively trading or speculating (see quotes by the founder). Tastyworks has better software for options. TD Ameritrade also has ThinkOrSwim which is pretty good overall. None of those can hold a candle to Robinhood's (perceived!) simplicity - even though I do think it's TOO simple.

fossuser 6y ago
I think 'too simple' is like what some search company CEO said to Larry Page about page rank being 'too effective' when Larry/Sergey were trying to license it to him before starting Google (people won't stay on the search portal to look at ads because they find their result too quickly). It's a lame excuse. None of those old search companies exist anymore. If you want to drive most users to just use index funds you can have great software that does that while also having great software that allows users to do everything else they may want to do (like have a checking account, wire money to other banks, automatically invest, etc.). Having shitty software and then pretending it's 'by design' is just a lazy justification. If Robinhood can build up a userbase by focusing on a neglected area they can expand and take over everyone. Their downward pressure on fees is already a win for users, if they're able to get through growing pains (unacceptable downtime/scale issues) I don't see why they can't be as big as Fidelity. I don't know if their software is actually that good, but there's definitely an opening here for someone that can get a foothold.
- outworlder 6y ago
  > I think 'too simple' is like what some search company CEO said to Larry Page about page rank being 'too effective' This is fine for search results. It is NOT fine for complex financial instruments where people can lose money. There's only so much you can 'simplify'. In this particular case, you can only make the UI itself simpler and easier to understand and operate. They can't make options trading itself any simpler. In other words, they can't make the domain itself any simpler by just throwing UX at it. Specifically, they can't make it any simpler by hiding information. The information is needed. This is why other trading platforms look 'busy'. Because trading options is not simple. Pretending that they are only lead to losses.

subsubzero 6y ago

I would choose Schwab over Robinhood any day of the week. I used robinhood and its data/metrics with stocks was extremely lacking and un-sophisticated. In addition order fulfilled timing was slow, I would never trade large amounts of stock with the app. Its all showy UI and bright colors. Which is fine as it seems to be getting alot of users using that method and the idea of "why use your Dads/Moms trading stock trading platform"?

outworlder 6y ago
> I would choose Schwab over Robinhood any day of the week Don't you have to prove to them that you actually know something about options before they let you trade? Robinhood... you check a box.
- wtf_is_up 6y ago
  Not really. You ask for level 1-4 options trading and they have you select from a dropdown how many years experience you have. It gets approved quickly. I've done this on TDA, IBKR, Merrill Edge.
- icedchai 6y ago
  All brokerages are like that. Back in the early 2000's, when I first enabled options trading, I had to fill out a paper form. This was also mostly just checking a box. If you could put a stamp on an envelope, you were qualified to trade options.
PascLeRasc 6y ago
I have a Schwab account, but it really bothers me that they're constantly trying to push their services like financial planning or investment advisors. Even if you look for target-date funds they'll hide the index one and push the expensive active ones. Compared to their website Robinhood is calm and minimalist, at least in my opinion.

icelancer 6y ago

TD Ameritrade and thinkorswim (their client they bought out) are both quite good. But not great for novice investors, which is where Robinhood crushed them. I think it's a net positive thing for people despite the doom and gloom stories we hear.

tzone 6y ago

I don't know, Vanguard is pretty good for what its supposed to be used for. You can get money in and out real fast. Even very large sums of money. You can trade without waiting for full settlement and all that, to make all the proper large rebalancing trades quickly without losses. You can have all your retirement accounts in it and tax management and integration works well. Their flows are all pretty smooth, you really don't need slick UI to make 3-4 trades a month at most. Of course you do need slicker UI when you are essentially offering an online casino to your users. Nice colors, engaging UI, etc is important to keep your audience entertained and to have them roll the dice more often.