Fisher Funds vs Booster KiwiSaver in NZ (2026): Active Managers Compared

Two of New Zealand's larger active KiwiSaver managers compared: fees, fund range, ethical options, scale and long-term performance, and who each suits.

TL;DR: Fisher Funds and Booster are both New Zealand-owned, actively managed KiwiSaver providers — not low-cost index trackers. Fisher Funds' KiwiSaver Plan Growth fund carries total annual fund charges of about 1.13%; Booster's Growth fund is broadly similar, in the 1.2-1.3% range plus a small member fee. The deciding factors are usually fund range, ethical options, scale and after-fee returns — not headline price.

This article is general information only and is not personalised financial advice. It does not take into account your particular financial situation, goals or needs. Before acting, consider whether it's right for you and seek advice tailored to your circumstances.

Fisher Funds vs Booster KiwiSaver is a comparison between two of New Zealand's better-known active managers, rather than between an active and an index approach. Both pick investments deliberately and charge accordingly. New Zealanders now hold a record $123.1 billion in KiwiSaver, up 10.1% over the year to 31 March 2025, driven by $12.2 billion in contributions and $6.4 billion in net investment returns. ¹² Choosing between two active managers within that pool comes down to detail, not philosophy.

This guide compares the two on fees, fund range, ethical options, scale and long-term performance, and sets out who each tends to suit. Figures are point-in-time, drawn from each provider's disclosures and Sorted's Smart Investor; as-at dates are noted where they matter. Returns are not guaranteed. The value of investments can go down as well as up and you may get back less than you invested. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.

How do Fisher Funds and Booster differ in approach?

Both are New Zealand-owned, privately held, active managers — so the usual "active versus index" framing does not apply here. The differences are more subtle.

Fisher Funds is one of the country's larger active managers and runs a wide multi-fund line-up. Its KiwiSaver Plan offers everything from Cash and Conservative options through to Balanced, Growth and Aggressive funds, with managers making deliberate calls on what to hold. Following its acquisition of Kiwi Wealth, Fisher Funds is now among the bigger players by funds under management, which is a point we return to below.

Booster is also New Zealand-owned and active, with a well-developed responsible-investment range and some options that index-only providers do not offer — including private growth assets through its Booster Tahi vehicles. Booster is strongly adviser-supported as a channel.

Neither approach is automatically better. Active management can add value or subtract it after fees, and that varies year to year. The useful question is which provider's range, costs and style fit a member's situation.

What are Fisher Funds vs Booster KiwiSaver fees in 2026?

Fees are the variable you can pin down with certainty, and over a working lifetime small percentages compound into real money.

Fisher Funds discloses total annual fund charges based on its 31 March 2025 audited financial statements. On its KiwiSaver Plan, the Growth fund charges about 1.13% (a manager's basic fee of 0.95% plus 0.18% in other charges), the Balanced fund about 1.01%, and the Conservative fund about 0.85%. ⁶⁷ The fuller ladder runs from Cash (0.44%) and Default (0.37%) up to Aggressive (1.23%). ⁷

One thing worth flagging honestly: Sorted's Smart Investor tool shows a higher figure for a Fisher Funds Growth fund — around 1.46% on a $30,000 balance — against a growth-fund average of about 1.30%. ⁸ That gap usually reflects a different, legacy Fisher Funds scheme entry rather than the current KiwiSaver Plan disclosure of 1.13%. It is a good example of why you should check which exact scheme and fund you are comparing before drawing conclusions.

Booster's Growth fund sits broadly in the 1.2-1.3% range, plus a small fixed member fee. So on a like-for-like basis the two are closer to each other than either is to a low-cost index fund — this is an active-versus-active comparison where a few hundredths of a percent, not a full percentage point, separate them.

You can run any two funds against each other on fees and after-fee returns using Sorted's Smart Investor tool. ⁸ How fees stack up against what a fund actually delivers is its own question, covered in our guide to KiwiSaver fees versus performance.

How do their fund ranges and ethical/responsible options compare?

This is where the two genuinely diverge, and where the choice often gets decided.

Fisher Funds offers a broad multi-fund ladder within its KiwiSaver Plan — Cash, Default, Core Conservative, Conservative, Balanced, Growth and Aggressive — giving members plenty of room to match a fund to their timeframe and risk appetite. It applies responsible-investment exclusions across its funds.

Booster also runs a wide range, and has built a particularly well-developed Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) range alongside its standard diversified funds. For members who want ethical screening to be front and centre rather than a baseline exclusion policy, that dedicated SRI line-up is a meaningful point of difference. Booster also offers access to private growth assets through Booster Tahi, which most KiwiSaver providers do not.

If responsible investing is a priority, it is worth comparing the two against the wider market rather than each other alone — our guide to ethical and responsible KiwiSaver funds sets out what to look for. Both providers being active managers, this also sits within the broader active versus passive KiwiSaver debate worth understanding first.

What does Fisher Funds' scale (post-Kiwi Wealth) mean for members?

Fisher Funds' acquisition of Kiwi Wealth made it one of New Zealand's larger active managers by funds under management. Scale can cut both ways, and it is fair to present both sides.

On the upside, larger managers can spread fixed costs across more members, invest in research and systems, and negotiate on dealing costs — all of which can, in principle, support competitive fees and capability. On the other side, very large active funds can find it harder to move nimbly in smaller markets, and a merger brings integration work that members do not see but that takes management attention.

Scale is not a guarantee of better outcomes for any individual member. What matters more is whether the specific fund you hold suits your timeframe and risk appetite, and how it performs after fees and tax over the long run. Bigger is a feature to weigh, not a verdict.

How have their balanced and growth funds performed long term?

Fees only matter relative to what you get back, and long windows tell you more than recent ones.

The Fisher Funds KiwiSaver Plan Growth fund has returned roughly 6.8% per year since its inception on 1 October 2007, reported after fees and before tax on Fisher Funds' own performance page. ⁹ That covers the global financial crisis, the 2020 pandemic shock and the recovery since — a genuinely long, representative window. It is an after-fee but before-tax figure to that date, so when you compare it with any other provider's number, make sure you are comparing the same basis.

A few honest points about reading returns:

• Match the risk category. Compare Growth with Growth and Balanced with Balanced. A Balanced fund will look weaker than a Growth fund simply because it holds fewer shares, not because the manager is poorer.
• Use after-fee, after-tax returns where you can. That is what actually lands in an account. Headline gross numbers flatter higher-fee funds.
• Five years is the minimum useful window, and longer is better. One strong year tells you almost nothing; KiwiSaver is a 30-to-40-year product.

For context on where most money sits, growth funds held the largest share of total KiwiSaver funds under management as at March 2024 — about 46%, ahead of balanced (29%) and conservative (17%). ¹⁰ The cleanest way to see live, like-for-like figures is each fund's official Smart Investor page, where you can line them up side by side. ⁸ Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.

Which saver suits Fisher Funds, and which suits Booster?

Because the two are close on fees and both are active, suitability tends to turn on range, ethical priorities and the kind of support a member wants.

_Source: Fisher Funds KiwiSaver Plan fees disclosure (based on 31 March 2025 audited financials); Booster current disclosures; Sorted Smart Investor; FMA KiwiSaver Annual Report 2025. Figures compared on a total-annual-fund-charge basis where available. Not every provider in the market is shown; always read each scheme's product disclosure statement._ ⁶⁷⁸

In broad terms: Fisher Funds may suit members who want a wide multi-fund ladder from a large, established active manager and value breadth of choice across risk levels. Booster may suit members for whom a dedicated SRI range or access to private growth assets matters, or who value its adviser-supported channel. Your own situation will differ, and personalised advice works through what actually fits you.

Do their property and direct-investment options change the picture?

Both managers do more than hold listed shares and bonds, and this is part of what the active fee pays for.

Booster's Tahi vehicles give members exposure to private, unlisted growth assets — businesses and projects that are not traded on a public market. That can diversify a portfolio in ways a pure index fund cannot, but private assets are harder to value, less liquid, and carry their own risks, so they are a feature to understand rather than assume is better.

Fisher Funds, as a large active manager, likewise makes deliberate allocation calls across asset classes within its diversified funds. The point for a member is not that one approach is superior, but that both providers are doing something more involved than tracking an index — which is exactly why their fees sit where they do. Whether that activity earns its keep shows up, over time, in after-fee returns. Returns are not guaranteed and the value of investments can fall as well as rise.

How do you move between them without a gap in the market?

A common worry when switching KiwiSaver providers is being "out of the market" while the transfer happens. In practice, a KiwiSaver provider switch is a transfer, not a withdrawal: you generally stay invested, and your balance moves across without you having to sell to cash and buy back in. There is usually no application needed from you beyond opening an account with the new provider, who then arranges the transfer.

That said, the mechanics matter less than the decision itself. Switching active managers to chase a recent return rarely pays off, and the friction of a transfer is a poor reason to stay in a fund that no longer fits. The better approach is to settle on the right fund type and provider for your situation first, then transfer once and leave it alone.

KiwiSaver is a long-term savings scheme. Government contributions, contribution rates, withdrawal rules and tax (PIR) settings are set by the Government and can change. Figures are correct as at 14 September 2025. Several 2026 changes are worth knowing whichever provider you choose:

Check current rules at ird.govt.nz, kiwisaver.govt.nz and sorted.org.nz, and the relevant scheme's product disclosure statement.

Frequently asked questions

Is Fisher Funds or Booster cheaper? They are close. Fisher Funds' KiwiSaver Plan Growth fund discloses total annual fund charges of about 1.13%, while Booster's Growth fund sits broadly in the 1.2-1.3% range plus a small member fee. ⁶ Both are active managers, so neither is a low-cost index option, and the gap between them is far smaller than the gap to an index fund. Whether the difference matters depends on after-fee, after-tax returns over the long run.

Why does Sorted show a higher Fisher Funds fee than Fisher's own page? Sorted's Smart Investor shows around 1.46% on a $30,000 balance for a Fisher Funds Growth fund, against Fisher's own KiwiSaver Plan disclosure of about 1.13%. ⁶⁸ The higher figure typically reflects a different, legacy Fisher Funds scheme rather than the current KiwiSaver Plan. Always confirm which exact scheme and fund you are looking at before comparing.

Did Fisher Funds get bigger after buying Kiwi Wealth? Yes. Acquiring Kiwi Wealth made Fisher Funds one of New Zealand's larger active managers by funds under management. Scale can support research and competitive costs, but it does not guarantee better outcomes for any individual member — the fund's fit and after-fee performance matter more.

Does Booster have ethical or responsible investment options? Booster runs a dedicated Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) range alongside its standard diversified funds. Fisher Funds applies responsible-investment exclusions across its funds. If ethical screening is a priority, it is worth comparing both against the wider market rather than against each other alone.

How much do I need to contribute to get the full government contribution? You need to contribute at least $1,042.86 in the KiwiSaver year (1 July to 30 June) to receive the full government contribution, which is capped at $260.72 and matched at 25c per $1 from 1 July 2025. People earning over $180,000 a year no longer qualify. ³⁴

Are KiwiSaver contribution rates changing? Yes. The default minimum employee and employer rate was 3% as at 14 September 2025, rises to 3.5% from 1 April 2026, then to 4% from 1 April 2028. ⁵

This article is general information only and is not personalised financial advice. Returns are not guaranteed; the value of investments can go down as well as up and past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. Craig Smith Business Services Ltd (FSP712931), trading as Smiths Financial, holds a Class 2 licence issued by the Financial Markets Authority to provide financial advice on personal risk insurance, health insurance, general insurance, KiwiSaver and managed funds, and is a member of the Financial Dispute Resolution Service (FDRS). We're generally paid by commission from the provider when you take out a product through us; this doesn't change the price you pay, and we manage any conflicts in line with our duty to prioritise your interests. Written by Henry Smith, Financial Adviser; reviewed by Craig Smith, Principal Adviser. Last reviewed 14 September 2025.