mirror of
https://github.com/actualbudget/actual.git
synced 2026-03-09 11:42:54 -05:00
[Bug]: The Y axis for the Net Worth chart must start at 0 #1023
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: github-starred/actual#1023
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @jeremyfourna on GitHub (Apr 3, 2024).
Verified issue does not already exist?
Is this related to GoCardless, Simplefin or another bank-sync provider?
What happened?
Actual version: v24.3.0 hosted on pikapods
When displaying the amount of money on a chart, the Y-axis must start from 0 to provide better visibility. Changing the date filters must not change the Y-axis starting point. Right now, each date filter impacts the Y-axis.
3 months
6 months
1 year
What error did you receive?
No response
Where are you hosting Actual?
Other
What browsers are you seeing the problem on?
Firefox
Operating System
Mac OSX
@youngcw commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2024):
The y-axis is dynamic on purpose. If it wasn't the chart would be a flat line for larger amounts
@carkom commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2024):
I don't understand this request. Previous month's Networth is a static number. It only starts at 0 for the first transaction in your file.
Maybe you mean cash flow or are looking for a networth delta?
@jeremyfourna commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2024):
The best practice when displaying finite data such as money in charts is to have the Y axis to start at 0.
@jeremyfourna commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2024):
This is taken from the WSJ book
@Teprifer commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2024):
Not starting at zero exaggerates the variation and is misleading - on mine, looking at anything other than the all time view the graph gives the impression I'm near broke because of a lump sum mortgage payment, but that's not the case.
Similar would be for any other large payment someone might have.
The all time view has to be used to properly contextualise recent changes.
@carkom commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2024):
Sorry, I thought you wanted the actual graph to start at zero. Didn't realize, you meant the axis labels.
@MatissJanis commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2024):
I share this sentiment.
Example - zero based net worth graph:
Has my net worth grown? Looks like it might have, but by a very little amount.
Whereas if the axis is dynamic.. the graph provides me much more value as I can immediately see the dip in net worth.
And the problem would be even more exaggerated with larger numbers. I believe once the net worth reaches 10m+ mark (which is totally feasible in many currencies) - the net worth graph will look like a flat line if we set the x-axis at 0.
@kymckay commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2024):
The solution here may be to use a different scale (e.g. log) at high values, but still start at 0. Becausewhile the second view in the above comment does highlight the dip better, it also misrepresents it to look like a larger dip than it actually is in the overall picture.Edit: On second thought, a log scale would make the dip look even smaller.
@Teprifer commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2024):
Here's the reverse issue I was mentioning, in the short term which doesn't have Y start at 0 it looks catastrophic, but in context(all time) the proportionality information is available because Y starts at 0:
vs
@kymckay commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2024):
Reconsidering this, I think the real improvement this ticket is seeking is to increase the maximum value for which Actual will start the chart axis at 0.
Per the book in the image above "if adding a couple of grid lines can cover the zero baseline, then do so". So not in cases where the values shown are sufficiently high that it would hide the changes being shown, but for some of the cases shown above (e.g. 18,000) it would probably make sense to still start at 0 instead of 10,000.
@carkom commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2024):
These are all good arguments but they're all in the context of your own currency (10k, 18k, etc.). In USD, even getting up to 500K or 1M these suggestions might work.
However, actual is made to be used with any currency. To @MatissJanis point, what about currencies where it is not uncommon for Net worth to be in excess of 10M? A zeroed y-axis would make almost any changes impossible to see.
If you want to see the number in context, use the "all time" view. If you want to see small changes from one month to the next then use a narrower view. If every time range started at 0 then all those views would look exactly the same. What's the benefit of that? It can't just be "because some book I read said so".
@glowtape commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2024):
I prefer the dynamic Y-axis. Without it, there'd be barely any visual movement my net worth graph. And I'm not even remotely Richie Rich.
@youngcw commented on GitHub (Sep 9, 2024):
Looks like the current options are going to stay for now. Closing.
@Spuddy commented on GitHub (Nov 3, 2025):
Sorry to revive an old thread, but I am also bugged by the different axis. I can see there are two different use cases. I have the use case which this design decision is does not cater for.
I would like to propose 2 potential solutions:
I would like to request that this have the Feature and needs votes label applied until someone has time to implement an enhancement.
@duxovni commented on GitHub (Nov 24, 2025):
I'd also like graphs where the Y axis starts at 0; it doesn't need to be the default, but I want it as an option. If starting at 0 makes the line look basically flat, then that's useful information for me—it tells me that my net worth hasn't significantly increased or decreased relative to my overall total, which is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to be able to see.