Pension Benchmarks

AlinaSG1

Hi there fellow MSE forumers, I am looking to see how my pensions are performing against industry averages/benchmarks but I'm really struggling to find Benchmarking information.  Can anyone tell me where I can find such factual accurate information?  (if it helps - I'm risk profile 6/10).

Thanks in advance.

QrizB

If you know your fundz, you can compare them on eg. TrustNet?

Here's VLS60 as an example:

https://www.trustnet.com/factsheets/O/ACDQ/vanguard-lifestrategy-60-equity-a-shares-acc

El_Torro

If you've decided to invest in a fund which is 60% equities and 40% bonds you shouldn't expect to beat a global tracker over the long term. That doesn't necessarily mean that a 60% multi asset fund is the wrong choice when compared to a global tracker. A global tracker is very volatile and if being invested in one is going to lead to you making silly decisions or losing sleep when equities tank then it's not the right fund for you. 

My point is that if you are comparing funds make sure you are comparing similar funds. If your risk profile is 6/10 (I'm not really sure what that means but let's go with it) then you shouldn't be surprised that a fund that is rated 9/10 outperforms the fund you are in. 

Albermarle

To get a better response you need to tell us exactly what your pension is invested in.

My point is that if you are comparing funds make sure you are comparing similar funds

It is also very important to compare over the same time scales.

If you just look at the data sheets for many pension funds, they only update performance data every 3 months and that update takes a few weeks. So if you compare the data from these to a fund that is updated daily, you could see big differences, that might not be valid. 

dunstonh

, I am looking to see how my pensions are performing against industry averages/benchmarks but I'm really struggling to find Benchmarking information. 

Pensions do not perform.   it is the investments within the pension that perform.

A modern whole of market platform will have all conventional investment options.  So, if you are comparing whole of market platform pensions then performance would be the same as the same investments can be held on all of them.

Is your pension whole of market or is it restricted to a limited fund range?

Also, as mentioned above, you are not going to be 100% equities with a 6/10 risk score.  So, you will see funds with higher past performance.    And remember that past performance is not a guide to the future.  For example,  2012-2024 had US equities as the top area for stockmarket but it was the worst from 1998-2011.  And its underperforming global in 2025.    Past performance doesn't tell you much unless it is compared on an exact like for like basis.

  (if it helps - I'm risk profile 6/10).

It gives an idea but the context of that 10 scale needs to be known.  i.e. does it start at zero or 1?   and is the lowest risk 100% cash or the lowest risk fund that they offer?   
Same at the other end with 10.   Is that highest risk conventional investments or all investments (i.e. going off the conventional scale) or is it limited to what they have to offer as the highest risk.

Cus

I believe the PN Mixed Investment 40-85% Shares index is a benchmark of the multi asset funds that have an equity allocation between 40 and 85%. Your risk rating is 6, but if you can identify your equity allocation percentage then maybe that can give you an idea for comparison. Assuming there are funds across all the allocations, then I would guess that this index equates to 60 ish equity allocation.

dunstonh

Cus said:

I believe the PN Mixed Investment 40-85% Shares index is a benchmark of the multi asset funds that have an equity allocation between 40 and 85%. Your risk rating is 6, but if you can identify your equity allocation percentage then maybe that can give you an idea for comparison. Assuming there are funds across all the allocations, then I would guess that this index equates to 60 ish equity allocation.

Some years back, one research company looked at the 40-85% sector and found it was totally unreliable to use as a benchmark.   That is quite logical really as a its a sector that contains funds with 40% equities at one end and 85% at the other.     

From memory, their 1-10 scale showed some funds in that sector coming out as 3 and others as 9 on the risk scale.