Ok Let's start with Fifi is talking bollocks so you can safely ignore that advice.
There is no 'set' formula for a financial settlement as every case is different. A whole range of factors are taken into account, assets, work prospects, salary, pension pot, number of children, age of children, any disabilities ....... the list is endless.
At the heart of all this is the tenet that 'the children's welfare is paramount'.
For instance, if there is only sufficient money in the pot for one house then the person who has residency may be entitled to that house, usually until the youngest child leaves full-time eduaction. The house is then sold and the monies are shared. The non-resident partner would meanwhile have to find and fund alternative living arrangemnets.
The court may also look at the assets and decide there is sufficent for 2 houses to be purchased. That what happened in my case. I got 70% of the assets to purchase a new home with a small mortgage, as I was working, Meanwhile my ex had 30% of the assets as a deposit for his new house. Had I not been working I could probably have stayed in the larger former matrimonial home and he could have had our savings as a deposit on his new home, but I wanted a clean break.
50/50 is not a fair split as it does not compensate you for the loss of earnings, the loss/delay to your career should you return to work, reduced future earnings due to your career break, or the fact that you have not been able to contribute towards an occupational pension while you have been a SAHM. He has had the benefit of all these things. The law is trying to put youo an equal footing - but, as I said before, with the interests of the child being paramount.
Every case is different. You need proper legal advice.