Morningstar data to December 2025 shows some of New Zealand's largest KiwiSaver providers delivering below-median returns across multiple time horizons. ANZ, AMP, and Fisher Funds each spent periods near or at the bottom of their categories, with differences partly attributed to portfolio construction philosophy rather than manager skill alone.
When it comes to KiwiSaver, size does not automatically translate to better returns. Morningstar data covering the period to the end of December 2025 shows that some of New Zealand's largest providers ranked among the poorer performers across multiple time horizons — and the gap between the best and worst was meaningful.
ANZ commands 16.6 percent of the KiwiSaver market, making it the country's largest provider. But across the three main fund categories, its results were consistently below median. In the conservative category, it was the second-poorest performer over both three and five years, and the worst over 10 years. In the balanced category, it ranked second-poorest over three, five, and 10 years. In growth, it was third-poorest over three years and 10 years.
An AMP fund was the worst performer in both growth and balanced over 10 years. Fisher Funds, the third-largest provider with 13.5 percent market share, had the lowest one-year returns in the balanced category and sat near the bottom across one, three, five, and 10 years in growth.
Why the gap matters
Morningstar head of data Greg Bunkall said it was important to distinguish between poor performance and structural portfolio differences. He said much of the dispersion in returns between providers came from how funds were constructed — including risk settings, asset allocation choices, and investment philosophy — rather than the quality of management decisions alone.
"Historically, some of the larger incumbent providers such as ANZ and AMP tended to run somewhat more structurally conservative portfolios within their respective risk categories," Bunkall said. "In practice, that often meant slightly higher allocations to cash and fixed income, broader diversification, less concentration in US large-cap technology stocks, and conservative risk controls or hedging frameworks."
Over the decade to December 2025, markets broadly rewarded the opposite characteristics — funds with higher exposure to global equities, US technology stocks, growth-style investing, and unhedged offshore assets. Funds that leaned into those areas during that period generally performed better relative to peers.
Bunkall noted that some larger providers had shifted their approach in recent years, and performance was beginning to reflect those changes. He also said investors should not draw simple conclusions from a single dataset — fund performance varied significantly depending on the time period measured and the market conditions prevailing during those years.
What the providers said
Each provider responded to the data. ANZ said its longer-term results reflected a challenging period for ANZ Investments, and that it had strengthened its investment team and external partnerships over the past two years. It said its KiwiSaver funds all delivered positive returns over the 12 months to 30 April 2026, ranging from 3.17 percent for its cash fund to 21.82 percent for its high-growth option.
Fisher Funds confirmed staffing changes including chief investment officer Ashley Gardyne moving to a head of global equities role, but did not comment on whether the move was related to fund performance.
AMP said it had transformed its investment strategy four and a half years ago, moving to an index-led approach it said offered lower fees and greater returns for customers, and that its recent performance was now exceeding many peers.
What this means for members
The data illustrates that KiwiSaver members who started with a large established provider are not necessarily getting the best return for their risk category. Past performance does not guarantee future results, and composition differences mean ranking tables need careful interpretation.
Morningstar's framework categorises funds by their disclosed risk profile — conservative, balanced, and growth — but the underlying portfolio decisions within each category can vary significantly between providers. A member in a growth fund with one provider may have a very different equity exposure and geographic split to a growth fund with another, making direct performance comparisons imperfect without understanding the portfolio construction.
For members reviewing their current scheme, the figures offer a prompt to check which category they are in, what that category actually invests in, and whether their fund's published returns over one, three, five, and 10 years sit above or below the peer median for that category.
This article is for general information only and is not personalised financial advice. Seek advice from a licensed financial adviser (registered on the FSPR) for guidance specific to your situation.