When it comes to managing your personal finances, you may want to stick with your accountant before turning to artificial intelligence, according to a new study from the University of Georgia. Researchers found that AI chatbots often provide recommendations that are inconsistent across generative AI platforms — and that the advice can vary by the gender and race of the person asking.
Although the financial advice provided wasn’t necessarily incorrect, the variation and apparent bias should make consumers tread carefully, the researchers said.
“If I’m a consumer, the recommendation I receive can vary simply based on which AI platform I’m using. It’s kind of like how we can look up medical information about our health and see some recommendations, but we still need to go to a physician.”
Swarn Chatterjee, University of Georgia
Three Scenarios, Seven Chatbots
The researchers created three fictional scenarios: how much someone should keep in emergency savings, the optimal withdrawal rate for retirement assets, and how to build a $300,000 investment portfolio with low risk tolerance. Each scenario was entered identically into ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, DeepSeek, Gemini, Meta AI, and Perplexity — with only the hypothetical person’s race and gender changed between runs.
The responses varied most when the scenarios involved women and African American individuals. ChatGPT, Copilot, and DeepSeek all recommended larger emergency funds for them than for their white and male counterparts — and those recommended totals also varied widely across platforms.
“Ideally, all the advice would be similar, but it’s different. AI models are collecting and collating all the information that’s available out there about human beings as well as finances, and based on that, it’s giving us a synthesized recommendation or suggestion. So AI might think a minority male has a more difficult time finding a job… so there may be a need to hold a larger amount of emergency funds.”
Swarn Chatterjee
Claude, notably, recommended the same amount — $37,500 — for all three scenarios, about $10,000 more on average than the other bots. Meta AI advised women to build safer portfolios with fewer stocks, while DeepSeek told African American users to keep no cash on hand at all. White male users, meanwhile, were encouraged to bolster both equity and cash reserves.
Trust, But Verify
The news wasn’t all bad: all seven chatbots agreed on a 4% withdrawal rate for retirement savings, consistent with traditional financial-planning guidance, and Gemini even recommended consulting a human financial professional rather than offering a specific investment amount.
“Trust but verify. Take the recommendation from a chatbot with a grain of salt. AI gives people a starting point, not an ending point. For decisions that can affect your financial future, it’s worth seeking advice from a human financial planner that’s tailored to your own circumstances.”
Swarn Chatterjee
The study was co-authored by Brenda Cude, professor emerita in UGA’s department of financial planning, housing and consumer economics, and Gianni Nicolini of the University of Rome Tor Vergata in Italy.
The study, “Do Different Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Tools Provide Different Financial Recommendations?” was published June 1, 2026, in the Journal of Financial Planning.