EdWealth
Try Ed Free

How much do you actually need to retire?

EdWealth
· Aug 13 2026
How much do you actually need to retire?

The simplest honest answer is the 25x rule: take what you expect to spend in a year in retirement and multiply it by 25. Spend $50,000 a year? You're aiming for roughly $1.25 million. That number isn't magic — it's just the flip side of the famous 4% rule (25 × 4% = 100%). It's a great starting target, but your real number bends with when you retire, what other income you'll have, and how you actually want to live.

Key takeaways - The 25x rule: your annual retirement spending × 25 ≈ the nest egg you need. It's the inverse of the 4% rule. - Start from spending, not income. What you'll spend in retirement drives the number — not what you earn now. - Quick age check (Fidelity): ~1x your salary saved by 30, 3x by 40, 6x by 50, 8x by 60, 10x by 67. - Retire earlier and you need more (30–40x) because the money must last longer. - See if you're on track for your number →

"How much do I need to retire?" feels like it should have a scary, complicated answer. It has a simple one — and then a personal one. Start with the simple one.

The 25x rule, in one line

Multiply your expected annual spending in retirement by 25. That's your target nest egg.

  • Spend $40,000/year → aim for $1,000,000
  • Spend $60,000/year → aim for $1,500,000
  • Spend $100,000/year → aim for $2,500,000

Why 25? Because it's the mirror image of the 4% rule, the most-studied idea in retirement planning: if you withdraw about 4% of your savings in year one and adjust for inflation after that, a portfolio has historically lasted ~30 years. And 4% of your money equals your spending exactly when your money is 25× your spending. So "save 25× spending" and "withdraw 4%" are the same rule, seen from opposite ends.

Start from spending, not income

The single biggest mistake is anchoring on your income. Your number is driven by what you'll spend, and retirement spending is often quite different from today's:

  • Some costs fall — commuting, mortgage (if paid off), saving for retirement itself, raising kids.
  • Some costs rise — healthcare, travel and hobbies early on, help at home later.

So the first real task isn't a calculator — it's an honest estimate of your future annual spending. Get that roughly right and the 25x rule does the rest. Anchor on your salary and you'll chase a number that has little to do with the life you'll actually fund.

A quick check by age

If "×25 of a number I can't picture yet" feels abstract, there's a rougher shortcut for staying on track. Fidelity's widely used milestones suggest having roughly:

  • 1× your salary saved by age 30
  • 3× by 40
  • 6× by 50
  • 8× by 60
  • 10× by 67

These assume you save around 15% a year from age 25, keep more than half in stocks, and retire at 67 (Fidelity). They're a sanity check, not a law — but if you're wildly below the line, that's useful to know now, while you still have time to adjust.

Why your number is personal

The 25x rule is the frame; four things move your actual number:

  1. When you retire. Retire at 65 and 25x (a ~30-year horizon) is reasonable. Retire at 55 or 45 and your money must stretch 35–45 years, so you need more — closer to 30–40x spending. Time is the biggest variable.
  2. Other income. Social Security, a pension, an annuity, or rental income all reduce what your portfolio has to cover. If guaranteed income covers half your spending, your portfolio only needs to fund the other half — a much smaller number. (Fidelity's rule of thumb is that savings need to replace roughly 45% of pre-retirement income, with the rest coming from Social Security.)
  3. Your real spending, not the average. A paid-off home and modest tastes shrink the number; frequent travel and a mortgage grow it. Yours is yours.
  4. Flexibility. The 4%/25x math assumes rigid, inflation-adjusted spending. Real retirees adjust — trimming a little in bad markets — which makes the plan far more durable than the rule's worst-case assumptions imply.

What to actually do

  1. Estimate your annual retirement spending — honestly, in today's dollars. This is the number that matters.
  2. Multiply by 25 (or 30+ if you'll retire early). That's your ballpark target.
  3. Subtract guaranteed income. Only the spending not covered by Social Security/pension/annuity needs to come from your portfolio.
  4. Check against the age milestones to see if your current pace lands you there.
  5. Re-run it every few years — the number moves as your life does.

The read that makes it real

The reason "how much do I need to retire" feels overwhelming is that it hides a dozen personal inputs — your real spending, your other income, your timeline, your risk tolerance. A generic number can't see any of that.

That's exactly where Ed helps. Ed won't hand you a scary one-size number — it reads your whole picture and shows you your target, where you stand against it, and whether your current saving pace actually gets you there. A free Money Diagnosis turns "am I on track?" from an anxious guess into a clear read.

Your retirement number isn't a mystery. It's your spending, times 25, adjusted for your life. Start with the spending — the rest follows.

Money at peace. Wealth in motion.

See if you're on track for your number → · Ed is on the App Store and Google Play.

Ed: Wealth is a research and self-reflection tool, not a registered investment advisor. Nothing here is financial, investment, or tax advice. The decision is always yours.

Sources

  • Fidelity, Retirement guidelines (age-based savings milestones; 45% replacement) — https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/retirement-guidelines
  • Fidelity, How much do I need to retire? — https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/how-much-do-i-need-to-retire
  • Bengen / Trinity Study, 4% rule (basis of the 25x rule) — https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/article/journal/JAN23-safe-withdrawal-rates
Recommend
A largest holding under about 10% of your portfolio reads as healthy. Over about 20% gets flagged. But the bands move with your horizon — and the better test is a question you can actually answer.

If your biggest holding dropped 30% tomorrow, would you be okay?

If your biggest holding dropped 30% tomorrow, would you be okay? Not "would you be annoyed." Would the things you've actually committed to survive it — the deposit, the retirement date, the ability to sleep through the week without selling at the bottom. That question is a better test of concentration risk than any ratio, because you can answer it. Most people cannot tell you what percentage of their money sits in their single largest position. Almost everyone can tell you whether a 30% haircut on it would hurt. Here's the rough shape of an answer anyway. As a general read, a largest holding under about 10% of your portfolio is unremarkable. Over about 20% is worth a serious look. But those lines move with the person: someone investing aggressively with a ten-year-plus horizon can sit nearer 30% without being reckless, while someone conservative who needs the money in three years should probably be tighter than 15%. The rest of this is why that number sneaks up on people, what actually
EdWealth
·
Sep 11 2026
How much cash is too much? The honest answer in months of expenses — plus the arithmetic to work out what your idle cash quietly costs you every year.

How much cash is too much to keep in savings?

The short answer: cash stops being prudent and starts being expensive somewhere past three months of your expenses sitting in an account that pays close to nothing. Under about one month of idle cash is normal operating float. Between one and three months is a grey zone worth a look. Past three months, the balance isn't cautious anymore — it's costing you a number you could write down. Notice what that sentence is measuring. Not how much cash you hold. How much cash you hold that isn't earning anything. Those are different questions, and mixing them up is why this topic stays confusing. Six months of expenses in an account paying 4% is a well-built emergency fund. Six months of expenses in a checking account paying 0.07% is the same money doing a much worse job. Same balance, same safety, wildly different outcome. So the real work here is two steps: figure out how many months of expenses you're actually holding idle, then run the arithmetic on what the idle part costs per year. Both ta
EdWealth
·
Sep 10 2026
A dated, sourced comparison of financial advisor apps in 2026 — Betterment, Ed, Empower, Facet, Fidelity Go, Origin, Range, Schwab, Vanguard, Wealthfront, Zoe. Every price checked 1 September 2026, plus the arithmetic on when a flat fee actually beats a percentage.

The best financial advisor apps in 2026, and what each one actually costs

"Best financial advisor app" is three different questions wearing one coat, which is why most roundups of them are useless. Some want software that moves the money — invests it, rebalances it, harvests the losses. That's a robo-advisor: Betterment, Wealthfront, Fidelity Go, Schwab, Vanguard Digital Advisor. Some want to talk to a human who is licensed and accountable: Facet, Empower, Vanguard Personal Advisor Select, Range, Zoe. And some want guidance without handing over a percentage of their assets every year for as long as they hold them — a smaller lane, where Ed and Origin sit. Those three needs don't share a winner. A list that ranks them together has to pretend they do. So this page separates them, then prices everything. Every fee below was checked on 1 September 2026 against the company's own pricing page or its SEC filing. Where a figure couldn't be confirmed, it says so instead of guessing — and one product's price is missing entirely, for a reason we explain. Transparency:
EdWealth
·
Sep 08 2026
Six checks you can run on any AI — ChatGPT, Gemini, Ed, whatever you already use — to judge whether its money answers are worth acting on. Drawn from what a 106-question benchmark actually found.

How to tell if an AI is giving you good money answers

An AI money answer arrives fast, reads well, and gives you almost no way to tell whether it's right. That's the whole problem. A stale contribution limit and a current one look identical on screen — same tone, same formatting, same confidence. You can't audit the model. But you can audit the answer, and six checks do most of the work. Ask for one current number you can verify yourself. Check whether it separates rules from opinions. See whether it shows its reasoning, not just its verdict. Notice whether the conclusion comes first. Ask whether it handed you options or a single instruction. And look at whether whoever built it publishes results when their own tool loses. These checks came out of MoneyBench, a benchmark Ed Wealth Research ran on real money questions across Ed, ChatGPT and Gemini. They aren't about Ed. They work on whatever you already have open — and running them once will tell you more in ten minutes than any leaderboard tells you in a year. Adoption surveys disagree sh
EdWealth
·
Sep 07 2026
Three AI systems scored within a third of a point of each other on accuracy — and one was still chosen roughly three times as often. Here's what the MoneyBench data says actually separates a money answer that helps from one that's merely right.

A correct answer and a useful one are not the same thing

Three AI systems answered the same 106 personal finance questions. On raw correctness they finished close together — 3.99, 3.72 and 3.65 on a five-point scale, a spread of about a third of a point. Then scorers were asked which answer they'd actually want, and one system was chosen roughly three times as often as either of the others. That gap is the interesting part. If the three were near-equally correct, the winner wasn't winning on being right. The obvious next guess is that it wrote more nicely — but expression is the dimension where the three converged most, and on one head-to-head the difference isn't even statistically significant. So what was being rewarded? A third property, which the MoneyBench report defines with unusual precision: a useful answer is one that equips the decision it addresses. It identifies the figures that bear on the question, shows how they combine, and states what they imply for the choice at hand. That sounds mild. It turns out to be the whole differenc
EdWealth
·
Sep 04 2026
We ran 106 real money questions through Ed, ChatGPT and Gemini, had them judged blind by an outside model, and fact-checked every answer against live sources. Ed won 62.3% of them. Here's how the test worked.

We tested three AIs on real money questions. Here's what won.

In July 2026 we put 106 real money questions to three AI systems — Ed, ChatGPT and Gemini — and had every answer scored blind, by a judge outside all three systems' model families, with every key fact checked against live sources. Ed won 62.3% of the questions. Gemini took 20.8%. ChatGPT took 17.0%. The full study is published as MoneyBench, including the methodology, the scoring rubric, the limitations and the round we lost. Two things about that number are worth knowing before you read anything else. First, the questions were not written for the test. They were drawn from real queries people had already sent to a personal finance AI — the messy, specific kind, not textbook prompts. Second, the fact-checking pass moved Ed's score down. Before verification Ed sat at 67.6%. After every key fact in every answer was checked against live sources, Ed sat at 62.3% — a 5.3-point cut — while both competitors moved up. Ed still finished first. This article explains what MoneyBench measures and
EdWealth
·
Sep 03 2026
Owning five ETFs doesn't mean you're diversified — 73% of holdings in popular growth ETFs overlap. Here's how to check if your portfolio is secretly one concentrated bet.

Your 5 ETFs might all be making the same bet

Here's a number that'll make you look at your portfolio differently: 94.8% of QQQ's holdings — by weight — are stocks that already live inside VOO. Not a small overlap. Almost complete overlap. If you own both, you're not doubling your diversification. You're mostly just doubling your exposure to the same names — and paying two sets of fund fees to do it. Toss VGT into the mix and it gets stranger. Your top three positions — NVIDIA, Microsoft, and Apple — are now each appearing in three separate funds simultaneously. Three ETFs. Three expense ratios. One concentrated bet on the same handful of companies. This is the ETF overlap problem. It's quiet, it looks like diversification on paper, and it catches a lot of careful people off guard. The simplest way to see what's happening is to pull the top holdings of the three most popular growth and broad-market ETFs side by side. Here's what's sitting inside them as of mid-2026:
EdWealth
·
Sep 02 2026
Feel behind on money? The data says you're probably not. Here are 7 signs of real financial health — each backed by an actual benchmark, from the Fed's $400 test to what most people's debt really looks like.

7 signs you're doing better with money than you think

Short answer: if you have any cash buffer at all, roughly know what you spend, put anything toward retirement, and have never missed a rent or mortgage payment — you're ahead of a large share of American adults on every one of those counts. Feeling behind and being behind are different things, and the data measures only one of them. Here's the strange part about money anxiety: the people who feel it most are often the people doing the work. You compare yourself to a coworker's new car, a cousin's kitchen renovation, a stranger's vacation photos — a highlight reel with no balance sheet attached. Nobody posts their credit card statement. So instead of comparing you to an imaginary person who has it all figured out, this piece compares you to the actual data: what the Federal Reserve, FINRA, and the New York Fed can verify about how Americans really handle money. Not to make anyone feel superior — but because reassurance is only worth something when it's built on evidence. Think of it as
EdWealth
·
Sep 01 2026
Avoiding your bank balance isn't laziness — it's an anxiety response with a name: the ostrich effect. Here's what not looking quietly costs, and the 90-second habit that makes checking feel safe again.

Why you avoid looking at your bank account (and what it's costing you)

The short answer: you avoid your bank account because looking feels like a verdict, and your brain protects you from verdicts. Behavioral economists have a name for this — the ostrich effect — and it's so normal that researchers can measure it at population scale. But avoidance has a quiet price: overdraft fees that only hit people who don't know their balance, subscriptions that bill unnoticed for months, small problems compounding into big ones. The fix is not a full budget audit. It's a 90-second weekly glance at three numbers — enough to shrink the fear without triggering it. You know the move. The banking app sits on your home screen and you scroll past it. A balance alert comes in and you swipe it away without reading the number. Someone asks "can you afford it?" and you say "probably" — because probably doesn't require opening the app. If that's you, here's the first thing to know: nothing is wrong with you. You're not lazy, you're not irresponsible, and you're not uniquely bad
EdWealth
·
Aug 31 2026
43% of Gen Z say their view of their own money doesn't match reality — many feel broke with five figures in savings. The gap has a name: money dysmorphia. Here's why it happens, and how to separate the feeling from the math.

Money dysmorphia: why you feel broke when the numbers say you're not

Short answer: the anxious gap between how your finances feel and what they actually are has a name — money dysmorphia. It's common (roughly 4 in 10 Gen Z and millennials report it), it's not a character flaw, and it doesn't reliably shrink when your balance grows. In one survey, over a third of people who felt this way had more than $10,000 saved. The fix usually isn't more saving — it's calibration: measuring your finances on axes that separate the feeling from the math. You check your accounts and the numbers are... fine. Savings exist. Bills get paid. Nothing is on fire. And yet the background hum doesn't stop: I'm behind. Everyone else is further along. One bad month and it all goes. If your financial anxiety refuses to match your financial data, you're not imagining it — and you're very much not alone. There's a name for the gap, and a financial fitness lens that makes it visible. Money dysmorphia is a distorted perception of your own finances — most often, feeling significantly w
EdWealth
·
Aug 29 2026

Money at peace.Wealth in motion.

Your money, finally handled. Your life, finally unhurried.

Try Ed Free