Comparing financial profiles
Below are two real examples generated directly by the Helm model. Each scenario compares two hypothetical people with slightly different financial profiles, and shows how those differences translate into meaningfully different outcomes.
The goal isn't to declare winners or losers. It's to make clear how Helm thinks, what it weights, and why context matters more than any single number.
The goal isn't to declare winners or losers. It's to make clear how Helm thinks, what it weights, and why context matters more than any single number.
Scenario 1: The Time Advantage
Alex and Ben are pretty much identical on paper.
Both earn $95,000, both have a $120,000 net worth, both save consistently, and both carry $10,000 of debt. If you looked only at the raw numbers, you might expect their financial position to be roughly the same.
Helm does not see it that way.
Alex is 28. Helm scores Alex at 0.75 (Excellent Position).
His breakdown shows:
Ben is 42. Helm scores Ben at 0.49 (Solid Ground).
His breakdown reflects:
The difference is not behaviour. It is time.
At 28, a $120,000 net worth places Alex far ahead of most people his age. Those savings have decades to compound, career risk is easier to absorb, and future earning growth still has meaningful runway. Benchmarked against his peer group, Alex already has significant optionality.
At 42, the same $120,000 tells a different story. While still respectable, it is more common relative to peers and leaves less margin for error. The clock matters. There is less time for compounding to do the heavy lifting, and financial structures are expected to be more established.
This is the core idea Helm is designed to surface.
Money is not judged in isolation. The same numbers can represent acceleration at one life stage and maintenance at another. Helm's role is not to praise or punish outcomes, but to show how much room you actually have, given where you are starting from.
Both earn $95,000, both have a $120,000 net worth, both save consistently, and both carry $10,000 of debt. If you looked only at the raw numbers, you might expect their financial position to be roughly the same.
Helm does not see it that way.
Alex is 28. Helm scores Alex at 0.75 (Excellent Position).
His breakdown shows:
• Net Worth: high relative to peers
• Income: strong for age
• Debt Pressure: manageable
Ben is 42. Helm scores Ben at 0.49 (Solid Ground).
His breakdown reflects:
• Net Worth: closer to the median for age
• Income: typical among peers
• Debt Pressure: similar in absolute terms, but heavier in context
The difference is not behaviour. It is time.
At 28, a $120,000 net worth places Alex far ahead of most people his age. Those savings have decades to compound, career risk is easier to absorb, and future earning growth still has meaningful runway. Benchmarked against his peer group, Alex already has significant optionality.
At 42, the same $120,000 tells a different story. While still respectable, it is more common relative to peers and leaves less margin for error. The clock matters. There is less time for compounding to do the heavy lifting, and financial structures are expected to be more established.
This is the core idea Helm is designed to surface.
Money is not judged in isolation. The same numbers can represent acceleration at one life stage and maintenance at another. Helm's role is not to praise or punish outcomes, but to show how much room you actually have, given where you are starting from.
Scenario 2: The Income Illusion
Income turns heads. Accumulation builds leverage.
Charlotte and Daniel live in the same city. Both are 31. On the surface, Charlotte looks like the clear winner, with a salary over double that of Daniel.
Charlotte earns $180k a year, a very strong salary by any standard. She has built a net worth of $60k, saves inconsistently, and carries $25k of debt.
Helm scores her at 0.53 (Solid Ground).
Daniel earns less than half that at $85k. Yet he has quietly accumulated $220k in net worth, saves consistently, and carries no debt.
Helm scores him at 0.72 (Excellent Position).
At first glance, this perhaps feels counterintuitive. After all, income is usually quite 'visible', whereas accumulation happens more slowly, and often out of sight.
Helm does not simply reward how impressive your earnings look. It rewards what you keep and compound.
Charlotte's income percentile is strong, but income alone is momentum, not security. Irregular saving and debt exposure limit flexibility, even at a high salary. The model reflects this by weighting balance sheet strength more heavily than raw earnings.
Daniel's profile tells a different story. Lower income, but materially higher net worth, consistent saving behaviour, and no debt drag. That combination compounds quietly but powerfully, and Helm reflects it across the score and breakdown.
This scenario captures another core Helm principle:
High income accelerates progress only if it turns into ownership.
Helm pays attention to what quietly accumulates underneath.
Charlotte and Daniel live in the same city. Both are 31. On the surface, Charlotte looks like the clear winner, with a salary over double that of Daniel.
Charlotte earns $180k a year, a very strong salary by any standard. She has built a net worth of $60k, saves inconsistently, and carries $25k of debt.
Helm scores her at 0.53 (Solid Ground).
Daniel earns less than half that at $85k. Yet he has quietly accumulated $220k in net worth, saves consistently, and carries no debt.
Helm scores him at 0.72 (Excellent Position).
At first glance, this perhaps feels counterintuitive. After all, income is usually quite 'visible', whereas accumulation happens more slowly, and often out of sight.
Helm does not simply reward how impressive your earnings look. It rewards what you keep and compound.
Charlotte's income percentile is strong, but income alone is momentum, not security. Irregular saving and debt exposure limit flexibility, even at a high salary. The model reflects this by weighting balance sheet strength more heavily than raw earnings.
Daniel's profile tells a different story. Lower income, but materially higher net worth, consistent saving behaviour, and no debt drag. That combination compounds quietly but powerfully, and Helm reflects it across the score and breakdown.
This scenario captures another core Helm principle:
High income accelerates progress only if it turns into ownership.
Helm pays attention to what quietly accumulates underneath.
