Women vs Men in Investing: The Numbers
The 'women are too risk-averse to invest well' story, against the data. Ten comparisons on who invests, how, at what cost — and what outcomes actually are.
| Measure | Women | Men |
|---|---|---|
|
Average annual portfolio return (Fidelity 5.2M accounts, 10-yr)
Women outperformed men by an average of 0.4 percentage points per year — attributed to lower trading frequency and more consistent allocation.
|
+0.4 pp higher | Baseline |
|
Trading frequency (Barber & Odean 35K accounts)
Men traded 45% more often than women. Excess trading cost men 2.65 pp/year in returns (vs 1.72 pp for women).
Barber & Odean, QJE (2001) · 2001
|
Baseline | 45% more trades |
|
Overconfidence score on investment decisions
Men systematically overestimate their own investment ability; women underestimate. Overconfidence drives excess trading and worse returns.
Barber & Odean, QJE (2001) · 2001
|
Lower | Higher |
|
Participation rate in US stock market
Women participate at lower rates, driven by income gap and different socialization around investing.
|
48% | 66% |
|
Retirement savings (median, full-time workers 55-64)
Women's retirement savings at median are ~31% lower. Gap widens across income deciles.
|
$81K | $118K |
|
Reported financial literacy (correct on 3 basic questions)
Women score lower on financial literacy tests. van Rooij et al. found controlling for this shrinks the investment-decision gender gap by 70%.
|
27% | 42% |
|
Panic-selling in market downturns
In 2020 COVID crash and subsequent downturns, men exhibited higher rates of panic-selling and subsequent mistimed re-entry.
|
Lower rate | Higher rate |
|
Asset allocation (stocks, same income bracket)
Small difference when income-matched. The myth of dramatically more conservative female allocations is overstated.
|
68% avg equity | 72% avg equity |
|
Average investment goals — % choosing 'retirement' as primary
Women tend to invest with longer-horizon, goal-specific mental framing; men more often cite 'growing wealth' in abstract.
|
68% | 56% |
|
Reported investing confidence vs actual performance
The confidence-outcome gap runs opposite to the stereotype. Confidence and skill are both miscalibrated, in opposite directions, by gender.
|
Underconfident vs outcomes | Overconfident vs outcomes |
What the numbers say
The headline finding: when you match men and women for income, financial literacy, and experience, the gender gap in investment risk-taking largely disappears. What remains isn't a female deficit but a male *surplus* — of trading frequency, of overconfidence, of panic responses. Women trade less and hold longer, behaviors the investment literature frames as disciplined. The 'women can't invest' stereotype has collapsed under 25 years of account-level data. The remaining structural gap is in participation and wealth — driven by the pay gap, time out of workforce, and financial-education access, not risk preference.
Related
Sources
Frequently asked
Do women outperform men in investing?
On average, yes — by a small margin in brokerage account data. Fidelity's 2017 5.2M-account study found a 0.4 pp advantage. The mechanism is less trading, not smarter picking.
Why do women participate less in investing?
Three structural factors: lower incomes (less surplus to invest), documented financial-education gaps, and investing culture marketed and socialized as male. Not risk aversion per se.
What is the 'overconfidence' effect in investing?
Men systematically rate their investment skill higher than their outcomes warrant. This drives more trading, which reduces returns (transaction costs, worse market timing). Barber & Odean (2001) quantified it at a 2.65 pp annual drag on men's returns.
Is the gender investing gap closing?
Yes. Women's brokerage account openings have grown faster than men's every year since 2020. Robo-advisors and lower-fee platforms have accelerated adoption especially among younger women.
Should I invest more aggressively?
The research doesn't say 'be more aggressive' — it says the gender stereotype of 'women too conservative' is wrong. Appropriate allocation depends on your horizon, goals, and risk capacity, not on whether your behavior matches a stereotype.