Choosing a KiwiSaver provider isn’t just about fees — returns matter too. This guide breaks down how major NZ KiwiSaver providers have performed across fund types and time horizons, and explains why raw return comparisons need context.
Where to Find Official Performance Data
The most reliable source for KiwiSaver fund returns in NZ is the Financial Markets Authority (FMA)’s KiwiSaver Annual Report and the Sorted KiwiSaver fund finder (sorted.org.nz/kiwisaver).
Sorted’s tool compares funds across all providers, standardised after fees, allowing fair comparison. The FMA publishes aggregated data in its annual reports.
Always compare:
- Returns after fees (not gross)
- The same fund type (growth vs growth — don’t compare growth to conservative)
- The same time period (at least 5 years; 10 years is more meaningful)
Growth Fund Performance — Major Providers
Approximate annualised returns to end of 2025 (after fees, before tax):
| Provider | Growth fund name | 1-year | 3-year | 5-year | 10-year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milford | Active Growth | ~12% | ~8% | ~9% | ~10% |
| Generate | Growth | ~11% | ~7% | ~8% | ~9% |
| Fisher Funds | Growth | ~10% | ~6% | ~8% | ~9% |
| Simplicity | Growth | ~12% | ~7% | ~9% | N/A* |
| Kernel | Global 100 | ~14% | ~9% | ~11% | N/A* |
| BNZ | Growth | ~11% | ~7% | ~8% | ~8% |
| ANZ | Growth | ~10% | ~6% | ~7% | ~8% |
| ASB | Growth | ~10% | ~6% | ~8% | ~8% |
| Westpac | Growth | ~9% | ~6% | ~7% | ~7% |
| Booster | Socially Responsible Growth | ~10% | ~6% | ~8% | ~7% |
*Simplicity and Kernel are newer providers without full 10-year track records.
These figures are illustrative estimates based on publicly available data and Sorted fund returns to end 2025. Verify current data at sorted.org.nz before making decisions.
Conservative Fund Performance
Conservative funds have much lower return potential but also much lower volatility:
| Provider | Conservative fund | 5-year annualised (approx.) |
|---|---|---|
| Simplicity | Conservative | ~3–4% |
| ANZ | Conservative | ~3–4% |
| BNZ | Conservative | ~3–4% |
| Milford | Conservative | ~4–5% |
| Fisher Funds | Conservative | ~3–4% |
Conservative fund returns are relatively tight across providers because they hold predominantly bonds and cash — asset classes with little dispersion between managers.
Why Returns Differ Between Providers
Active vs passive management
Actively managed funds (Milford, Fisher Funds, Generate) employ stock pickers aiming to beat the market. In some years and periods, they succeed. Passive funds (Simplicity, Kernel, SuperLife) simply track an index.
Over long periods globally, most active managers underperform their benchmark after fees. NZ is a smaller market, and some active managers have genuinely outperformed — but past outperformance doesn’t guarantee future results.
Geographic allocation
Funds with heavy US exposure (especially tech-weighted indices) have performed very strongly over the past decade, driven by the S&P 500 and Nasdaq. Funds with more defensive or value-tilted allocations may lag in periods of tech-driven growth.
NZ vs international allocation
NZ share markets have performed modestly compared to global markets over the 2015–2025 decade. Funds with greater international exposure have generally outperformed those with a domestic tilt.
Returns After Fees — Why Fees Matter as Much as Returns
A fund with a 10% gross return and 1.0% fee delivers 9% net. A fund with 9.5% gross return and 0.3% fee delivers 9.2% net. The lower-gross fund wins after fees.
This is why comparing gross returns without accounting for fees is misleading. Always use after-fee return figures — Sorted standardises these.
Example — $100,000 balance, same fund type, over 20 years:
| Provider | Annual return (after fees) | Balance at 20 years |
|---|---|---|
| Low-fee index fund | 9.0% | ~$560,000 |
| High-fee active fund | 8.5% | ~$505,000 |
| Difference | 0.5% | ~$55,000 |
How to Compare KiwiSaver Returns Fairly
- Use the same fund type — only compare growth to growth, balanced to balanced
- Use after-fee returns — Sorted’s fund finder standardises this
- Use at least 5-year returns — 1-year returns are noise; 5–10 years are signal
- Account for risk — a fund that returned 11% with high volatility isn’t better than 9% with lower volatility if you’d have panic-switched during the bad years
- Don’t chase recent winners — the best performer last year often reverts to the mean; last decade’s winner is more meaningful
Provider Consistency — A Key Metric
Beyond raw returns, look at consistency. A fund that returns 8%, 9%, 7%, 9%, 8% over five years is more reliable than one that returns 20%, 5%, 15%, 1%, 10% — even if both average similar numbers. Consistent funds are less likely to have a catastrophic year just before your planned withdrawal.
What the FMA Says
The FMA’s annual KiwiSaver reports note that:
- Most KiwiSaver members are in growth or balanced funds
- Fee levels vary significantly across providers (0.3% to 1.5%+)
- Member engagement (choosing fund types, reviewing contributions) remains low
- Long-run, passive funds have been competitive with active funds in many categories
FMA data is published annually at fma.govt.nz.