The 7 best outsourced CIO firms for financial advisors in 2026 to consider are Orion OCIO, SEI, GeoWealth, Helios Quantitative, Wilshire, Russell Investments, and Mercer. Their services range from portfolio construction and quantitative research to trading, investment oversight, and institutional asset management.
Outsourcing can create measurable capacity for advisory firms. According to AssetMark's July 2026 Impact of Outsourcing Study, advisors who outsourced investment management for at least 20% of their assets reported saving an average of 9.1 hours per week. The study surveyed 745 financial advisors and highlights the practical role outsourcing can play in reducing internal workloads.
For independent RIAs, choosing an outsourced CIO requires evaluating investment expertise, portfolio customization, advisor control, technology compatibility, and fees. This guide compares seven firms to help advisors identify a provider suited to their investment process and operating needs.
We evaluated seven investment outsourcing providers based on their publicly documented services, investment capabilities, operating models, and suitability for financial advisors and RIAs. The comparison includes advisor-focused OCIO firms, institutional investment managers, and GeoWealth, a TAMP provider that offers an alternative approach to outsourcing investment operations.
Our evaluation focuses on three criteria that directly affect an advisory firm's investment process, operating capacity, and long-term scalability.
A provider's investment methodology influences how portfolios are constructed, managers are selected, and risks are monitored. We considered each firm's research capabilities, asset allocation approach, investment strategies, and ability to support customized portfolios.
For advisors, an important consideration is whether the provider can accommodate an established investment philosophy, client restrictions, and portfolio objectives. We also examined whether firms primarily offer standardized investment solutions or support more tailored portfolio construction.
We assessed how each provider structures investment responsibilities and integrates with existing advisory operations. Some offer discretionary portfolio management, while others support research, model development, and implementation under the advisor's direction.
We also considered compatibility with custodians, trading systems, reporting platforms, and account-level requirements. These factors affect how easily an advisory firm can incorporate external investment expertise without creating unnecessary operational complexity.
We examined publicly available pricing information, service structures, and governance capabilities. Relevant considerations include management fees, underlying investment expenses, implementation costs, reporting, and investment committee support.
We also considered whether each operating model could support increasing account volumes, additional advisors, and more complex investment requirements.
Evaluation Note: This comparison reflects publicly documented capabilities and potential advisor fit. It does not represent independent performance testing or imply that the listed providers offer equivalent services. Placement in the list should not be interpreted as a ranking of investment performance.
Read More: What Actually Matters When Choosing an Outsourced CIO Firm
The following providers illustrate seven investment outsourcing approaches. Their capabilities overlap, but differences in intended clientele, investment philosophy, and operational infrastructure can materially affect suitability for an independent advisory practice.
Best for: Financial advisors seeking modular investment management and operational support.
Orion OCIO, powered by TownSquare Capital, offers an outsourced investment model developed for advisory firms seeking additional portfolio management and operational capacity. Its modular structure allows advisors to engage support for specific functions, including investment research, portfolio construction, trading, rebalancing, and selected back-office activities.
Core investment services: Portfolio management, manager research, trading, model maintenance, and operational support.
Portfolio customization and advisor control: Orion describes a sub-advisory arrangement in which advisors retain their client relationships and custodial relationships while delegating agreed investment responsibilities.
Technology and implementation: The service is designed to relieve advisors of selected operational tasks. Firms should distinguish Orion OCIO from Orion Portfolio Solutions, which provides a separate TAMP offering.
Pricing: Public service descriptions do not establish a universal fee schedule. Advisors should request a proposal based on delegated functions, assets, and implementation requirements.
Ideal client profile: Independent RIAs and wealth management teams seeking to expand investment and trading capabilities without adding equivalent internal staffing.
Potential limitations: The economic value depends on the specific services selected. Advisors should confirm which research, trading, reporting, and account-management responsibilities remain with their internal team.
Advisor takeaway: Orion merits consideration when trading and portfolio operations create material capacity constraints, particularly for firms seeking modular outsourcing within established advisory relationships.
Best for: Institutional investment programs and organizations requiring broad delegated investment capabilities.
SEI provides OCIO services alongside investment management, technology, administration, and investment operations. Its institutional business supports organizations seeking comprehensive investment outsourcing and offers unbundled capabilities for investment teams that intend to retain certain functions internally.
Core investment services: Institutional asset allocation, investment management, manager oversight, portfolio implementation, operational infrastructure, and supporting technology.
Portfolio customization and advisor control: The scope of discretion and governance responsibilities depends on the engagement. SEI's institutional solutions accommodate different levels of delegation.
Technology and implementation: Its broader capabilities include investment processing, data management, portfolio intelligence, and administrative support.
Pricing: Fees and contractual structures depend on the institutional mandate. RIAs should request service-specific proposals and clarify any eligibility or minimum requirements.
Ideal client profile: Institutional investors, larger investment organizations, and firms with complex operational or governance requirements.
Potential limitations: SEI's institutional OCIO offering is primarily positioned toward institutional asset owners. A typical independent RIA should verify whether that engagement model is appropriate for its scale and advisory business.
Advisor takeaway: SEI may be relevant when an organization requires investment outsourcing together with substantial operational infrastructure and institutional governance support.
Best for: RIAs seeking integrated portfolio management technology, trading, and outsourced operations.
GeoWealth operates as an advisor-focused turnkey asset management platform (TAMP), combining investment solutions with technology and operational support. Although its service model differs from traditional OCIO arrangements, GeoWealth is relevant to advisors comparing external investment management options.
Core investment services: Model portfolio access, outsourced trading, portfolio implementation, rebalancing, and investment operations.
Portfolio customization and advisor control: Advisors can select from investment solutions and models while using platform tools to accommodate client requirements. Actual customization depends on the investment program.
Technology and implementation: GeoWealth emphasizes integrated technology, custodial connectivity, portfolio reporting, and operational workflows.
Pricing: Platform and investment program costs vary. Advisors should confirm how asset-based fees, underlying investment expenses, and optional services are charged.
Ideal client profile: RIAs seeking a scalable technology and investment platform, particularly those managing increasing account volumes or transitioning into independence.
Potential limitations: A platform-focused operating model may be less appropriate for firms whose primary requirement is an external CIO supporting an internally defined investment philosophy and governance process.
Advisor takeaway: GeoWealth deserves consideration when portfolio implementation and technology infrastructure are the main constraints. Advisors needing broader investment committee or strategic research support should evaluate those requirements separately.
Best for: RIAs seeking customized quantitative investment research and an integrated CIO relationship.
At Helios Quantitative, we provide investment research, quantitative portfolio construction, risk analysis, and ongoing investment support for financial advisors. Through our Insourced CIO Approach, we work within your firm's established investment processes, helping strengthen portfolio oversight, expand research capabilities, and support your preferred level of involvement in investment decisions.
Core investment services: We provide quantitative research, customized investment models, portfolio monitoring, investment committee support, and investment process documentation. We also offer trading and implementation assistance through defined service arrangements.
Portfolio customization and advisor control: We develop customized model ecosystems around your firm's investment philosophy, client requirements, and portfolio objectives. Our Quantitative Investment Models support this process through customized portfolio frameworks designed around your firm's investment approach and client needs.
We establish decision-making authority and trading responsibilities based on the scope of our engagement, allowing us to support your existing investment process.
Technology and implementation: We work alongside your existing advisory workflows and investment infrastructure, providing portfolio analysis, model maintenance, and supporting documentation. Our approach allows us to integrate investment expertise into your established operations.
Pricing: Our fees depend on the services required and the scope of our engagement. We provide pricing based on your firm's research, investment committee, portfolio implementation, and trading support needs.
Ideal client profile: We work with independent advisors, multi-advisor RIAs, family offices, OSJs, and aggregators seeking to strengthen investment research, portfolio governance, and operational capacity without building a full internal investment department.
Potential limitations: Our services focus on investment research, portfolio construction, and related investment support. Firms seeking a comprehensive replacement for custodial technology, portfolio accounting, or firmwide back-office systems should discuss their operational requirements with us to determine where our capabilities fit.
Advisor takeaway: Our Insourced CIO approach is particularly relevant for advisory firms with established operations that want to strengthen their investment process. We combine quantitative research, customized models, and ongoing investment support while working alongside your existing team.
Read More: Why Advisors Wait Too Long to Partner With an Outsourced Chief Investment Officer (OCIO)
Best for: Organizations requiring institutional investment research, manager selection, and customized portfolio solutions.
Wilshire provides institutional investment consulting, research, discretionary investment management, and OCIO services. Its investment capabilities cover asset allocation, traditional and alternative manager evaluation, portfolio construction, and risk analysis.
Core investment services: Investment consulting, manager research, asset allocation, discretionary management, and customized institutional investment solutions.
Portfolio customization and advisor control: Wilshire provides tailored solutions through advisory and discretionary structures. Decision authority varies by mandate.
Technology and implementation: Its investment research and analytics capabilities support portfolio assessment and oversight, although firms should establish how implementation connects to their existing systems.
Pricing: Engagement costs depend on the service mandate. Advisors should request specific information about management fees, implementation arrangements, and investment expenses.
Ideal client profile: Institutional investors, family offices, investment committees, and wealth management organizations requiring sophisticated research or investment consulting.
Potential limitations: Wilshire serves a broad institutional client base. Smaller RIAs should confirm service availability and the economic suitability of the specific services they need.
Advisor takeaway: Wilshire may be attractive when manager due diligence, investment research, and specialized portfolio construction represent the primary requirements.
Best for: Institutional asset owners managing complex investment programs.
Russell Investments provides OCIO services built around investment research, manager selection, portfolio implementation, and ongoing management. Its institutional business serves organizations including defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans, healthcare systems, and nonprofit institutions.
Core investment services: Asset allocation, manager research, investment implementation, risk management, and delegated investment management.
Portfolio customization and advisor control: Russell offers tailored institutional investment programs, with governance responsibilities and discretionary authority established through the mandate.
Technology and implementation: Its capabilities include multi-manager oversight, portfolio exposures, implementation, and investment reporting across public and private markets.
Pricing: Fees vary by mandate, asset coverage, investment complexity, and delegated services. Institutional proposals may involve several layers of investment and implementation costs.
Ideal client profile: Pension plans, endowments, foundations, healthcare organizations, and other institutional asset owners requiring comprehensive investment oversight.
Potential limitations: Russell's institutional OCIO model may be more extensive than the requirements of a typical advisor-led practice. RIAs should confirm whether its institutional solutions fit their business structure.
Advisor takeaway: Russell is a relevant option for organizations managing complex investment pools that require substantial investment research, implementation resources, and institutional oversight.
Best for: Institutional investors and complex wealth management organizations requiring governance-focused investment solutions.
Mercer, now part of Marsh People and Investments, provides institutional investment consulting and outsourced CIO services covering investment research, asset allocation, delegated management, and governance.
Company update: Effective September 1, 2026, Mercer adopted the Marsh brand as part of its parent company's move toward a unified global identity. Its investment capabilities now operate under Marsh People and Investments, with the transition preserving Mercer's established expertise and client relationships.
Core investment services: Investment research, manager selection, governance consulting, portfolio construction, risk management, and discretionary implementation.
Portfolio customization and advisor control: Marsh supports advisory and delegated investment arrangements, allowing organizations to establish the investment responsibilities and decision-making authority they intend to retain.
Technology and implementation: Its institutional capabilities include manager research, portfolio analytics, investment operations, and specialized solutions involving alternative investments and private markets.
Pricing: Engagement fees depend on the investment mandate, asset complexity, and scope of delegated services.
Ideal client profile: Institutional investors, investment committees, sophisticated family offices, and wealth management organizations managing complex investment portfolios and governance requirements.
Potential limitations: Its institutional service model may involve investment and operational requirements beyond those of smaller independent RIAs. Advisors should verify service availability, investment minimums, and implementation requirements.
Advisor takeaway: Marsh People and Investments, formerly Mercer, is worth evaluating for organizations seeking institutional investment expertise, comprehensive manager research, and structured investment governance.
Outsourced CIO firms differ in their investment capabilities, customization, technology infrastructure, and level of delegated authority. The following comparison highlights how each provider's operating model may fit different advisory practices.
Service availability, investment discretion, technology compatibility, and minimum requirements vary by engagement and should be confirmed directly with each provider.
Customization ranges from adjustments to predefined models to fully tailored investment mandates.
At Helios, we develop customized models around an advisory firm's investment philosophy and client requirements. Orion offers modular investment support, while GeoWealth provides model-based solutions through its TAMP infrastructure. Wilshire, Russell Investments, and Marsh primarily serve institutional mandates requiring specialized portfolio construction.
Advisors should confirm whether customization extends to asset allocation, security selection, tax-sensitive holdings, and client-specific restrictions.
Read More: Model Portfolio Management: Best Practices for Advisors to Improve Investment Oversight
Technology compatibility determines how easily an OCIO can operate within an advisory firm's existing infrastructure.
Platform-oriented providers may offer integrated trading, rebalancing, and reporting. Research-focused relationships may support existing custodians and portfolio systems, depending on the engagement. Before selecting a provider, advisors should verify custodial connectivity, trading permissions, account data integration, and responsibility for resolving implementation exceptions.
OCIO relationships may involve discretionary management, where the external manager can implement strategies within an agreed mandate, or nondiscretionary support, where specified decisions remain subject to advisor approval.
The service agreement should clearly establish who develops investment recommendations, approves portfolio changes, executes trades, monitors account restrictions, and maintains documentation. These responsibilities affect investment accountability, operational efficiency, and the advisory firm's ongoing oversight obligations.
Read More: Investment Process Documentation: The Missing Link Between Performance and Governance
Outsourced CIO fees vary based on assets under management, investment complexity, service scope, and the level of responsibility delegated. Since most providers do not publish standardized pricing, advisors should request proposals with comparable services and clearly defined costs.
Fee structures can have different implications as an advisory practice grows. Advisors should evaluate how costs change with increasing assets, account complexity, and service requirements.
The quoted OCIO fee may exclude underlying fund expenses, trading costs, custodial charges, technology subscriptions, and portfolio transition expenses.
Internal responsibilities also affect total cost. For example, a firm outsourcing investment research may still handle trading, reporting, and compliance documentation, while a broader arrangement may include implementation but require continued investment committee oversight. Advisors should identify these retained responsibilities before comparing proposals to avoid overlooking duplicated expenses or operational requirements.
Read More: What It Takes to Run Investments In-House vs Outsourced CIO Cost
A practical cost comparison should account for external fees, investment expenses, technology, implementation, and the internal resources required to manage the relationship.
Advisors should then evaluate measurable operational outcomes, such as fewer research backlogs, more consistent portfolio reviews, and additional capacity for client relationships. The financial value of outsourcing depends on how effectively those resources are redeployed and whether the arrangement supports the firm's investment process as it grows.
Read Next: Outsourced Portfolio Management: When Control Creates More Risk Than Protection
Selecting an outsourced CIO firm starts with understanding your advisory practice's investment needs, operating structure, and desired level of control. The right provider should complement your existing resources, address operational constraints, and support long-term growth.
Start by identifying where your advisory practice needs additional support, whether in investment research, portfolio construction, trading, or ongoing oversight. Consider which responsibilities consume the most internal resources and where existing processes struggle to accommodate growth.
Clarifying these needs helps narrow your provider selection and prevents unnecessary duplication of services, technology, or internal capabilities.
Review each provider's investment methodology, portfolio construction process, and ability to accommodate client-specific requirements.
Confirm whether the investment approach aligns with your firm's philosophy and how much authority you retain over asset allocation, model changes, and implementation. These decisions affect portfolio consistency and your ability to serve clients with different investment objectives.
Clear accountability is essential when delegating investment functions. Advisors should establish who approves decisions, executes trades, monitors portfolios, and maintains supporting documentation. At Helios, our Compliance Documentation services help advisory firms organize the investment records and supporting materials used in portfolio reviews and oversight processes.
Common warning signs include unclear decision authority, inconsistent reporting, weak documentation, and limited visibility into portfolio changes. Review the provider's regulatory disclosures, contractual responsibilities, and potential conflicts. Outsourcing investment functions does not eliminate an advisory firm's applicable fiduciary obligations.
Compare proposals using consistent criteria, including investment capabilities, service scope, technology compatibility, total costs, and implementation requirements.
Consider whether the relationship can support additional advisors, growing account volumes, and more complex investment needs without creating new operational bottlenecks. A documented investment process with clearly assigned responsibilities can also improve business continuity and reduce dependence on individual team members.
Read Next: Outsourcing as a Growth Engine: How Top Firms Are Scaling Smarter
An Insourced CIO approach is particularly relevant for advisory firms with established custodial relationships, investment technology, and operational processes that need additional investment expertise.
It allows firms to expand their research, portfolio construction, and oversight capabilities while continuing to use their existing infrastructure. This can be especially valuable when internal teams have limited capacity for quantitative analysis, model maintenance, or investment committee research.
Consider a multi-advisor RIA with an operations team managing trading and account administration, while senior advisors remain responsible for investment research, allocation decisions, and portfolio reviews.
An Insourced CIO relationship can provide dedicated research and model management support while the firm retains agreed decision-making responsibilities and client relationships. A more structured investment process can also improve documentation, reduce dependence on individual advisors, and support consistent portfolio oversight as the practice grows.
At Helios, we deliver our Outsourced CIO Services through an Insourced CIO Approach that integrates with your firm's existing investment processes. We provide quantitative research, customized investment models, portfolio monitoring, and investment committee support. We tailor these capabilities to your investment philosophy, operational requirements, and preferred level of involvement in investment decisions.
Our approach helps advisory firms strengthen their investment capabilities while maintaining established workflows, client relationships, and clearly defined responsibilities.
Choosing an outsourced CIO partner requires a clear assessment of your advisory firm's investment needs, operational capacity, and long-term objectives. The right relationship should strengthen portfolio oversight, establish clear responsibilities, and support a consistent investment process as your practice grows.
Key takeaways for financial advisors:
Match expertise to your firm's needs. Prioritize providers that address specific gaps in research, portfolio construction, implementation, or investment governance.
Establish clear accountability. Define who makes investment decisions, approves portfolio changes, executes trades, and monitors outcomes.
Evaluate total costs. Consider provider fees, underlying investment expenses, technology requirements, and retained internal responsibilities.
Confirm operational compatibility. Assess how the provider integrates with existing custodians, investment systems, and reporting processes.
Plan for sustainable growth. Choose a relationship that supports additional advisors, more complex client needs, and consistent investment oversight without increasing key-person dependency.
These considerations directly affect your firm's ability to serve clients, manage investment risk, and maintain an effective operating structure. A well-defined outsourcing arrangement can also support business continuity, succession planning, and long-term enterprise value.
At Helios, we work alongside advisory firms through our Insourced CIO Approach, providing quantitative research, customized investment models, and ongoing portfolio support within established investment processes. If you're evaluating outsourced CIO providers, schedule a conversation with our team to explore how our capabilities could support your advisory practice.
Start by identifying which investment functions your RIA needs to outsource, including research, portfolio construction, trading, or ongoing oversight. Compare OCIOs based on their investment methodology, customization capabilities, technology compatibility, fees, and service requirements. The right OCIO provider should fit your existing operations and support your firm's investment objectives.
An RIA retains its applicable fiduciary and oversight responsibilities when working with an OCIO. The service agreement should establish who approves investment decisions, monitors portfolio risks, manages client restrictions, and maintains documentation. Advisors should also review performance reporting, escalation procedures, and potential conflicts of interest.
An outsourced CIO can assume selected responsibilities traditionally handled by an internal CIO, including investment research, asset allocation, manager selection, and portfolio monitoring. The breadth of support depends on the engagement. Some firms delegate substantial investment responsibilities externally, while others use OCIO services to supplement their existing investment professionals.
OCIO firms may support equities, fixed income, alternative investments, and other asset classes through model portfolios or customized investment mandates. Available investment vehicles and implementation capabilities vary by provider. Advisors should verify whether the firm can accommodate tax-sensitive holdings, account restrictions, liquidity requirements, and specialized investment strategies.
Advisors may consider outsourcing when research demands, portfolio complexity, or ongoing monitoring responsibilities exceed their internal capacity. Common reasons include managing risk, improving investment process consistency, and creating more time for client-facing responsibilities. Before making the transition, firms should assess whether the anticipated operational benefits justify the costs and responsibilities associated with the arrangement.