Milford and Fisher Funds are both active New Zealand fund managers — they both employ research teams to pick stocks and build portfolios, rather than simply tracking an index. But the similarity largely ends there. When you put their fees and long-term performance side by side, the difference is striking.
Disclosure: MoneyBalance may earn a referral fee from some providers linked on this page. This does not influence our analysis.
Quick Comparison: Milford vs Fisher Funds
| Feature | Milford | Fisher Funds |
|---|---|---|
| Investment approach | Active management | Active management |
| Default provider (2021) | Yes | No |
| Growth fund fee | ~0.85%–1.05% | ~1.20%–1.45% |
| Growth fund 5-yr return (indicative) | ~9.5%–10.2% p.a. | ~7.0%–7.8% p.a. |
| Conservative fund fee | ~0.55%–0.65% | ~0.75%–0.90% |
| Funds under management | One of NZ’s largest | Large (owns SuperLife) |
| Digital tools | Full member portal | Member portal |
| Ethical option | No | No |
Fees: Milford vs Fisher Funds
Fisher Funds’ fees are notably higher than Milford’s — and higher than most of the market:
Growth fund fees:
- Milford: ~0.85%–1.05%
- Fisher Funds: ~1.20%–1.45%
On a $100,000 balance:
| Balance | Milford fee (~0.95%) | Fisher Funds fee (~1.35%) | Annual difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| $50,000 | $475 | $675 | $200 |
| $100,000 | $950 | $1,350 | $400 |
| $200,000 | $1,900 | $2,700 | $800 |
Fisher Funds is among the most expensive providers in the NZ KiwiSaver market — above the typical bank fee range and well above the independents that have justified higher fees with stronger performance.
Performance: Milford vs Fisher Funds
This is where the comparison becomes pointed:
5-year after-fee returns (growth funds, indicative to December 2025):
- Milford Active Growth: ~9.5%–10.2% p.a.
- Fisher Funds Two Growth: ~7.0%–7.8% p.a.
Milford has outperformed Fisher Funds by approximately 2.0–2.5 percentage points per year after fees over 5 years.
On $100,000 over 10 years:
- Fisher Funds at 7.4% p.a.: ~$203,000
- Milford at 9.8% p.a.: ~$255,000
- Difference: ~$52,000
This is not a marginal gap. It represents Fisher Funds delivering lower returns than Milford — while charging significantly higher fees.
The uncomfortable arithmetic: Fisher Funds charges roughly 0.4–0.5 percentage points more in annual fees than Milford, yet has underperformed Milford by 2+ percentage points per year after fees. This means Fisher Funds has underperformed before fees by approximately 1.5–2 percentage points — a substantial active management shortfall.
Why the Gap Exists
Several structural factors contribute to Fisher Funds’ underperformance relative to its fees:
Investment approach: Fisher Funds has historically had significant exposure to NZ and Australian equities. In periods where international (particularly US) equities drove global returns, this home-country bias weighed on returns.
Fund structure: Fisher Funds Two (the main KiwiSaver fund) is a fund-of-funds structure in some components, which adds a layer of cost.
Size: Fisher Funds is a large manager, and large active managers tend to find it harder to generate excess returns — they cannot take meaningful positions in smaller opportunities without moving the market.
No passive component: Unlike Simplicity or BNZ, Fisher Funds does not offer a low-cost passive option. All funds are actively managed at premium prices.
Milford’s Genuine Edge
Milford’s 5-year track record is real and meaningful — not a statistical accident. Key differentiators:
- Proven investment team: Milford’s key portfolio managers have a long and consistent track record
- Selective positioning: Milford has been more flexible in rotating between NZ, Australian, and international equities as conditions change
- Default provider selection: Milford was selected as a 2021 default provider — a government endorsement of its fee-performance balance
The risk is that this outperformance is partly behind us: Milford is now a very large manager, and maintaining alpha becomes harder at scale.
SuperLife (Fisher Funds’ Other KiwiSaver Brand)
Fisher Funds also owns SuperLife — a separate KiwiSaver scheme with a very different approach. SuperLife offers low-cost passive index options at fees closer to Simplicity (around 0.30%–0.55% for many funds), and was selected as a 2021 default provider.
If you’re currently with Fisher Funds Two and looking at passive alternatives, SuperLife is worth comparing — even though it’s owned by the same parent company, the fee structure is fundamentally different.
The Verdict
Between these two active managers, Milford is the clearer choice on both fees and performance. Fisher Funds has not justified its higher fees with higher returns — the opposite has been true over the past 5 years.
Choose Milford over Fisher Funds if you want active management from an NZ provider with a proven track record.
Consider Simplicity if you want to remove the active management risk entirely and accept index-matching returns at 0.31%.
Consider SuperLife if you’re drawn to Fisher Funds’ infrastructure but want passive indexing at low cost.
There is no strong case for Fisher Funds Two at current fees relative to alternatives.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Fisher Funds a bad KiwiSaver provider? Fisher Funds Two’s fee-for-performance profile has been poor relative to alternatives over the past 5 years. That doesn’t mean it’s “bad” in absolute terms — members have still received positive returns — but the opportunity cost of choosing Fisher Funds over Milford or Simplicity has been meaningful.
Does Fisher Funds own other KiwiSaver providers? Yes. Fisher Funds owns SuperLife, which operates as a separate KiwiSaver scheme with a different fee structure and investment approach. SuperLife’s passive funds are significantly cheaper than Fisher Funds Two.
Can I switch from Fisher Funds to Milford? Yes. Switching is free, takes 10 working days, and requires completing Milford’s membership application. See our switching KiwiSaver providers guide.
Has Milford always outperformed Fisher Funds? Over the recent 3- and 5-year periods, yes. Over very short periods (1 year), results have occasionally been closer. Use 5-year after-fee data as your benchmark — not last year’s return.
What to Read Next
- Simplicity vs Milford KiwiSaver — passive vs active debate
- Bank vs Independent KiwiSaver NZ — the full provider landscape
- Cheapest vs Best Performing KiwiSaver — does low cost always win?
- Milford KiwiSaver Review — full Milford provider analysis
- KiwiSaver Fees Comparison — all providers ranked by fee
- Best Performing KiwiSaver Funds NZ — full ranked performance tables
- Switching KiwiSaver Providers — how to move providers