Milford vs Generate KiwiSaver in NZ (2026): Two Active Managers Compared

Milford vs Generate KiwiSaver compared: fees, long-term returns, fund options and who each tends to suit, with a clear look at whether an active fee is worth paying.

TL;DR: Milford and Generate are two of New Zealand's larger active KiwiSaver managers, each running a flagship growth fund of around $5–6 billion. ⁷⁸ Both aim to beat the market through active selection, and both charge more than index funds for the attempt — Milford's Active Growth runs about 1.25% all-in, Generate's Focused Growth about 1.29%. ⁴⁶ The real question is whether that fee earns its keep for your goals.

Milford vs Generate KiwiSaver is a common comparison because both sit in the same camp: active managers who pick investments rather than simply tracking an index, and who charge accordingly. They are often shortlisted together by people who have decided they want an active approach and now want to choose between the two best-known names.

This guide compares them on the things that compound over a working lifetime — fees, fund range, long-term returns, account experience — and, just as importantly, asks the question that sits underneath the whole comparison: whether paying active fees at all is the right call for you. Figures are point-in-time and sourced; check current figures with each provider before acting.

How do Milford and Generate actually differ in investment style?

Both are active managers, but it helps to be precise about what that means before comparing fees or returns.

An active manager employs a team that researches and selects investments, adjusts the mix as conditions change, and tries to do better than simply holding everything in the market. The alternative — a passive or index fund — just tracks a market index at low cost and makes no attempt to beat it. Milford and Generate both sit firmly on the active side. Our guide to active vs passive KiwiSaver sets out that trade-off in full.

Where the two differ is in emphasis and history. Milford is an established, investment-led firm with a long track record across managed funds as well as KiwiSaver, and a reputation built on its in-house investment team. Generate launched as a KiwiSaver-focused specialist and grew quickly, with a flagship Focused Growth fund that now holds $4.51 billion across 107,349 members. ⁷ Both run genuinely active, growth-oriented strategies; neither is a low-cost index shop. The distinction between them is one of style and pedigree rather than one being active and the other not.

What are Milford vs Generate KiwiSaver fees in 2026?

Fees are the cost you control with the most certainty, and over decades they compound hard, so it pays to compare them on a like-for-like basis.

Both managers charge more than index funds, which is the deal with active management: you pay for the team and the attempt to outperform. On Milford's Active Growth Fund, total estimated annual fund fees come to about 1.25% — a 1.05% base fund fee plus an estimated 0.20% performance fee. ⁴ Milford does not charge joining or exit fees and allows free transfers between its funds. ⁴ Generate's Focused Growth Fund carries a total annual fund charge of about 1.29% — a 1.16% manager's basic fee plus 0.13% other charges, with no performance fee, per Disclose-register data. ⁶

A couple of things are worth understanding about those numbers:

• Performance fees. Milford's Active Growth fee includes an estimated performance fee, charged when the fund beats a set benchmark. Milford's Aggressive Fund, by contrast, runs at about 1.15% with no performance fee. ⁵ A performance fee can be reasonable when it aligns the manager with you, but it does make the headline cost less predictable year to year.
• Like-for-like comparison. The cleanest way to compare is one standardised number. Sorted's Smart Investor combines each fund's charges into a single figure and lets you compare every KiwiSaver fund — including both of these — on the same basis. ¹⁰ On a $30,000 balance, Smart Investor shows Milford's Active Growth at a standardised 1.05% management fee, for example. ⁸

For more on how to weigh a fee against what you get for it, see KiwiSaver fees vs performance. The point is not that either is "expensive" in the abstract — it is that both cost more than index funds, and you should know each number and decide whether the active approach justifies it.

How do their long-term returns compare (and why is that the wrong sole metric)?

Fees only matter relative to what you keep, so performance is the other half of the picture — but it is the half people most often read wrongly.

A few rules make any return comparison meaningful:

• Match the risk category. Compare a Milford growth fund with a Generate growth fund, not with a balanced one. A fund holding more shares will usually look better in a strong sharemarket year and worse in a downturn, regardless of manager skill.
• Use after-fee, after-tax returns. That is what actually lands in your account, and it already nets off the higher active fee. Headline gross figures flatter higher-fee funds.
• Use long periods. One strong year tells you very little. KiwiSaver is a 30-to-40-year product, and active managers in particular can lead for a stretch and lag the next.

Rather than quote a single period here — which can mislead, and which would risk presenting one manager's best run as typical — the cleaner approach is to pull live, like-for-like figures from one independent source. Smart Investor lets you compare standardised returns, fees and risk for every Milford and Generate fund on one screen, fund type by fund type. ¹⁰

The reason returns are the wrong sole metric is that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance, and an active fund's recent lead can reverse. Returns are not guaranteed; the value of investments can go down as well as up, and you may get back less than you invested. Look at how each fund has done over the longest period available, against funds of the same risk type, on an after-fee, after-tax basis — then weigh that alongside fee, fund fit and your own timeframe rather than chasing whichever name topped a recent table. Our guide to chasing the top-performing fund explains why that habit tends to backfire.

What fund options does each offer across the risk spectrum?

Most people end up in a growth fund with one of these managers, but it is worth knowing the wider ladder, because the right fund type matters far more than the choice of provider.

Both Milford and Generate offer a range across the risk spectrum — broadly from more conservative options through balanced settings to growth and aggressive funds — so a member can match their fund to their timeframe and risk tolerance and adjust it as life changes. Milford's range, for instance, includes both the Active Growth Fund and a higher-octane Aggressive Fund at a slightly different fee and risk level. ⁴⁵ Generate's range centres on its Focused Growth Fund but extends across other risk settings too.

The honest summary is that either manager gives you enough choice to sit in a fund that fits you. The more important decision is which rung of the ladder you are on. A member in their twenties parked in a conservative fund, or someone near retirement still in an aggressive one, is likely affected far more by that mismatch than by any fee or style difference between Milford and Generate. Our guide to choosing a KiwiSaver fund walks through how to match the fund type to your situation.

Which type of saver suits Milford, and which suits Generate?

There is no universal answer here, and anyone who gives you one without knowing your situation is guessing. But it is fair to describe the kinds of savers each tends to appeal to.

People drawn to Milford often value a long, established investment track record and an investment-led firm with a broad managed-funds business behind the KiwiSaver scheme. Those comfortable with a performance fee — paying a little more when the fund does well — may find its structure reasonable.

People drawn to Generate often like a KiwiSaver-focused specialist with a large, growth-oriented flagship fund and no performance fee on that fund, which makes the annual cost more predictable. ⁶⁷

Both are active managers charging active fees, so neither suits someone whose priority is the lowest possible cost — that points towards index funds instead. And neither suits someone who has not first settled the bigger questions: the right fund type for their timeframe, the correct PIR (Prescribed Investor Rate — the tax rate on your KiwiSaver earnings), and whether they are on track to claim the full government contribution. Personalised advice works through which manager, if either, fits you, rather than assuming a winner.

How do their minimum balances and account experience compare?

The day-to-day experience matters less than fees and fund fit over a lifetime, but it is a fair thing to weigh.

Both providers offer modern online accounts and apps, regular reporting, and the standard KiwiSaver functions — changing your fund, updating your PIR, and arranging first-home or retirement withdrawals. Both are well-resourced managers of meaningful scale: Milford's Active Growth Fund holds around $5.98 billion and Generate's Focused Growth around $4.51 billion, set against a KiwiSaver system that now holds above $120 billion in total. ⁷⁸⁹ Scale of this kind is reassurance about administration and continuity, not evidence of the best after-fee return.

On minimum balances and any account specifics, the cleanest course is to check each provider's current Product Disclosure Statement rather than rely on a figure that can change. Neither manager's account experience is a strong reason to choose it over the other; the fee, the fund fit and the long-run after-fee return should carry far more weight in the decision.

Should you pay active fees at all, or is index cheaper for the same outcome?

This is the question underneath the whole comparison, and it deserves a straight, balanced answer rather than a sales line either way.

The case for active management is that a skilled team may add value — by selecting investments well, managing risk through downturns, or adjusting the mix as conditions change — enough to justify the higher fee after costs. The case for index funds is blunt: they cost much less, and a fee saved is certain, whereas outperformance is not. An active fund has to beat its index by more than its extra fee, every year, just to leave you level. Some active funds have managed that over some periods; many have not, and which ones will in future cannot be known in advance.

Neither approach is "right" for everyone. Some people are comfortable paying an active fee for the chance of outperformance and the active management of risk; others prefer the low, certain cost of an index fund and accept market returns. What matters is going in with eyes open: an active fee is a real, compounding cost, and it buys an attempt, not a guarantee. Our guide to active vs passive KiwiSaver sets out both sides in full so you can decide which camp suits your goals before you pick a manager within it.

How do you switch to either provider without losing time in the market?

Switching is simpler than most people expect, and you stay invested the whole time, so there is no need to "cash out" first.

The general process looks like this:

1. Choose your fund, not just the manager. Decide on the fund type that matches your timeframe and risk tolerance, then compare options on Smart Investor or with an adviser. ¹⁰

2. Apply to the new provider. You only ever sign up with the scheme you are moving to — Milford or Generate — and they arrange the transfer.

3. Your balance is transferred across. Your existing provider transfers your money to the new one. You keep all your KiwiSaver tax and contribution settings, and you remain invested through the move.

4. Update your contribution rate and PIR. Make sure your employer contributions redirect and that your new provider holds your correct PIR.

You can only be in one KiwiSaver scheme at a time, so there is no separate paperwork to "close" the old account — the transfer handles it. There can be a short administrative period as money moves between funds; confirm the timing and whether any out-of-market gap concerns you. Our guide to switching KiwiSaver funds and providers covers the detail, and a review can do it with you if you would rather not go it alone.

Milford vs Generate: fees and fund range at a glance (2026)

_Source: Milford fees page; Generate Focused Growth data via Mindful Money / Disclose register; Sorted Smart Investor. ^4567810 Not every active manager in the market is shown — compare both against other providers, and against index funds, on a like-for-like basis, and read each fund's PDS._

Frequently asked questions

Is Milford or Generate KiwiSaver better? Neither is universally better. Both are active managers running large growth funds at broadly similar all-in fees — about 1.25% for Milford's Active Growth and 1.29% for Generate's Focused Growth. ⁴⁶ The right choice depends on your timeframe, risk tolerance and whether you value Milford's longer investment track record or Generate's no-performance-fee structure. Compare them fund type by fund type on Smart Investor before deciding. ¹⁰

Why do Milford and Generate cost more than index funds? Because both are active managers. They employ teams to research, select and adjust investments and try to beat the market, and you pay for that attempt. An index fund simply tracks the market at low cost and makes no such attempt. The active fee is a real, compounding cost, and it buys an attempt to outperform, not a guarantee. ⁴⁶

What is a performance fee, and does Generate charge one? A performance fee is an extra charge a manager takes when a fund beats a set benchmark. Milford's Active Growth Fund includes an estimated performance fee of around 0.20% on top of its base fee; Generate's Focused Growth Fund does not charge a performance fee, which makes its annual cost more predictable. ⁴⁶ Check each fund's current PDS for the exact terms.

How do I switch from one to the other without being out of the market? You apply only with the provider you are moving to, and they arrange the transfer; your balance moves across without you cashing out, and your KiwiSaver settings carry over. You can only be in one scheme at a time, so the transfer closes the old one automatically. There can be a short administrative gap as money moves — confirm the timing with the new provider. ¹⁰

Will switching affect my government contribution or my contributions? No. Switching schemes does not change your eligibility for the government contribution or your employer contributions. If eligible, you can receive up to $260.72 per KiwiSaver year by contributing at least $1,042.86, and the minimum employee and employer rates are each 3.5% of before-tax pay from 1 April 2026 — these settings are set by the Government and apply regardless of provider. ¹²

Should I pay for an active manager at all? That depends on your goals. Active management may add value after fees, but it has to beat its index by more than its extra fee just to leave you level, and outperformance is not guaranteed. Index funds cost far less, and a fee saved is certain. Some people are comfortable paying for the attempt; others prefer the low, certain cost of index. Neither is right for everyone — it is worth settling that question before choosing between Milford and Generate. ⁴⁶

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. 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, and figures here are correct as at 5 April 2026 — check current rules at ird.govt.nz, kiwisaver.govt.nz and sorted.org.nz, and the relevant scheme's Product Disclosure Statement. Returns are not guaranteed; the value of investments can go down as well as up, you may get back less than you invested, 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 and is a member of the Financial Dispute Resolution Service (FDRS). Smiths Financial does not provide advice on mortgages, tax or legal structuring. Written by Henry Smith, Financial Adviser; reviewed by Craig Smith, Principal Adviser. Last reviewed 5 April 2026.