Pension Fund Performance Tables 2026: Workplace & Personal Pensions

To help you compare pension fund performance, the following interactive charts give an overview of the overall best and worst performing funds from the almost 13,000 funds we analysed. Use the ‘Best performing’ and ‘Worst performing’ buttons to toggle between them.

The first chart shows the top 15 performing funds – and the 15 funds with the worst performance figures – as average annual returns. In other words, how much growth that fund has returned, on average, to its investors per year. For these figures we used however much data we had for the fund, up to a maximum of 20 years, and then averaged it out.

Hover over a bar in the chart to view how many years’ data was used to form the average annual performance figure. You’ll also be able to see which risk category that fund fell into.

This second chart, below, shows the top 15 performing funds – and the 15 funds with the worst performance figures – from cumulative total returns over 5 years. (In other words, how much your money would have grown in total over the past 5 years.)

That’s because comparing overall performance doesn’t allow for differences between the funds and what they’re trying to achieve.

Pension funds are typically divided into categories based on the percentage of the fund that is comprised of equities (stocks). ‘Equity allocation’ is the single biggest factor that affects how much risk and volatility investors will likely be exposed to.

Volatility just means ups and downs in the markets. High volatility means you could get deeper lows, but it could also mean you get higher highs than a low volatility fund, where the aim is steady growth that avoids big peaks and troughs on a chart.

There are some strong reasons why you might not want your money exposed to a lot of volatility. If you are close to retirement age, for example, you won’t want the pension savings that you’re relying on to fund your retirement to be exposed to a the possibility of a sudden dip in value just as you’re about to start drawing down the money. In that case, you’ll likely want an investing strategy that protects your money from volatility.

Knowing how much volatility your money could be exposed to is, therefore, very important when determining the right pension fund for you and your retirement goals.

To make comparisons more valid and fair, we grouped all funds into one of five categories, representing the level of potential risk and reward investors are typically exposed to within that fund.

To determine the appropriate category, we used available volatility data for each fund and then used the The SRRI (Synthetic Risk and Reward Indicator) is a European regulatory tool (1-7 scale) for funds that indicate a fund's risk/reward profile based on past volatility, with 1 being very low risk/low potential reward and 7 being very high risk/high potential reward.SRRI scale to convert it to a number. Each number was then given a description from low-high.

SRRI level 1 = low risk fund
SRRI level 2-3 = medium-low risk fund
SRRI level 4 = medium risk fund
SRRI level 5-6 = medium-high risk fund
SRRI level 7 = high risk fund

The chart above shows the 15 best performing, and the 15 worst performing ‘high risk’ category funds – as average annual returns. In other words, how much growth that fund has returned, on average, to its investors per year. For these figures we used however much data we had for the fund, up to a maximum of 20 years, and then averaged it out.

Hover over a bar in the chart to view how many years’ data was used to form the average annual performance figure. You’ll also be able to see which risk category that fund fell into.

This second chart (below) shows the top 15 performing funds – and the 15 funds with the worst performance figures – from cumulative returns over 5 years. (In other words, how much your money would have grown in total over the past 5 years.)

The chart above shows the 15 best performing, and the 15 worst performing ‘medium-high risk’ category funds- as average annual returns. In other words, how much growth that fund has returned, on average, to its investors per year. For these figures we used however much data we had for the fund, up to a maximum of 20 years, and then averaged it out.

Hover over a bar in the chart to view how many years’ data was used to form the average annual performance figure. You’ll also be able to see which risk category that fund fell into.

This second chart (below) shows the top 15 performing funds – and the 15 funds with the worst performance figures – from cumulative returns over 5 years. (In other words, how much your money would have grown in total over the past 5 years.)

The chart above shows the 15 best performing, and the 15 worst performing ‘medium risk’ category funds – as average annual returns. In other words, how much growth that fund has returned, on average, to its investors per year. For these figures we used however much data we had for the fund, up to a maximum of 20 years, and then averaged it out.

Hover over a bar in the chart to view how many years’ data was used to form the average annual performance figure. You’ll also be able to see which risk category that fund fell into.

This second chart (below) shows the top 15 performing funds – and the 15 funds with the worst performance figures – from cumulative returns over 5 years. (In other words, how much your money would have grown in total over the past 5 years.)

The chart above shows the 15 best performing, and the 15 worst performing ‘medium-low risk’ category funds – as average annual returns. In other words, how much growth that fund has returned, on average, to its investors per year. For these figures we used however much data we had for the fund, up to a maximum of 20 years, and then averaged it out.

Hover over a bar in the chart to view how many years’ data was used to form the average annual performance figure. You’ll also be able to see which risk category that fund fell into.

This second chart (below) shows the top 15 performing funds – and the 15 funds with the worst performance figures – from cumulative returns over 5 years.

The chart above shows the 15 best performing, and the 15 worst performing ‘low risk’ category funds – as average annual returns. In other words, how much growth that fund has returned, on average, to its investors per year. For these figures we used however much data we had for the fund, up to a maximum of 20 years, and then averaged it out.

Hover over a bar in the chart to view how many years’ data was used to form the average annual performance figure. You’ll also be able to see which risk category that fund fell into.

This second chart (below) shows the top 15 performing funds – and the 15 funds with the worst performance figures – from cumulative returns over 5 years. (In other words, how much your money would have grown in total over the past 5 years.)

When were returns recorded?

Returns were recorded on 31st December 2025.

For more up-to-date figures, please consult data available from the platforms. As pensions are a long-term investment, however, savers should be aware that it is important to look at performance over at many years, and not to make decisions that could affect their financial wellbeing at retirement based on short-term market movements.

Which funds did we analyse?

In total, we analysed the performance of 12,983 pension funds available to UK savers.

The funds analysed collectively hold more than £1trn of UK retirement savers’ money.

Which funds did we not analyse?

We have only analysed Defined Contribution (DC) pensions. While some of the largest funds in the UK are actually Defined Benefit (DB – also known as Final Salary Pension) funds, the majority of these are now closed to new entrants. In the case of some DB schemes, it is not possible to transfer out, and in all cases, transferring out of a Defined Benefit (DB) pension scheme to a Defined Contribution (DC) scheme is something that must be considered very carefully and only with the help of a qualified financial advice professional. Giving up a DB pension typically means giving up a guaranteed income for life and replacing it with a pension that could rise or fall in value.

To be included in the analysis, the fund also needed to have been established for at least 5 years. Pensions are long-term investments and it is not possible to fairly judge whether performance objectives are being met over any lesser period than 5 years.

Do these figures include fees?

All data is net of the following fees: AMC (Annual Management Charge) and OCF/TER (Ongoing Charges Figure/Total Expense Ratio). However, please note that data is not net of additional fees (such as annual platform fees or contribution fees) levied by platforms.

Why do we do this analysis?

We feel that it’s important for people to engage with their pension because small decisions made early — or ignored entirely — can make a very large difference to the standard of living someone experiences in retirement.

Two people with the same pot size can have very different outcomes depending on how their money is invested. Looking at performance helps savers see:

• Whether their fund is growing as expected
• Whether they might experience a shortfall at retirement
• How much they could reasonably have expected their fund to grow, by comparing it to other similar funds
• Whether the level of risk they are exposed to matches their age, risk appetite and plans for retirement
• Whether they need to make changes in order for their pension to adequately fund the retirement they have planned

In short, having access to this kind of information could result in thousands of pounds more at retirement. It could even help you retire sooner.

Even using these measures, it’s important to note that not all funds within a category will have the same objectives.

Some fund managers will be using other benchmarks, such as returns a certain percentage above the Consumer Price Index, or to beat a particular index such as the FTSE 100, for example. Some have very vague measures of success, such as ‘the prospect of capital growth over the long term’, which is why we have not used funds’ own objectives as our main benchmark.

To view fund objectives, you’ll need to view the fund factsheet providers are obliged to produce for each fund.

The following are good questions to ask when selecting a fund:

• What is the objective of this fund?
• Does meeting that aim help me achieve my financial and retirement goals?
• Has the fund been meeting the goals it has set itself?
• How is this fund performing in relation to other funds in the same category?
• Is the fund meeting my expectations for performance?

We always recommend seeking help from an Independent Financial Advisor or Independent Financial Planner if you have any questions around the suitability of funds and pension plans for your retirement goals and financial circumstances.

We analyzed all of the top UK pension providers including the best performing Scottish Widows pension funds, alongside major workplace providers like Legal & General, Aviva, Royal London, and Aegon.

What the data shows is that there is no single provider that dominates our top tables – and no one provider that overwhelmingly sits at the bottom.

We can summarise the brands who performed best in the total cumulative returns tables as:

• High Risk Funds: Aegon/Scottish Equitable (5 of the top 15 funds); Aviva (3 funds); Scottish Widows (3 funds)
• Medium-High Risk Funds: ReAssure (4 of the top 15 funds); Aviva (2 funds); MetLife (2 funds); Legal & General (2 funds)
• Medium Risk Funds: Scottish Widows (5 of the top 15 brands); ReAssure (4 funds); Prudential (3 funds)
• Low-Medium Risk Funds: Prudential (10 of the top 15 funds)
• Low Risk Funds: Prudential (11 of the top 15 funds)

And the brands who performed worst in the total cumulative returns tables as:

• High Risk Funds: SSGA (3 of the 15 lowest performing funds); Phoenix Wealth (3 funds); Scottish Friendly (2 funds); Canada Life (2 funds); Zurich (2 funds)
• Medium-High Risk Funds: Aegon/Scottish Equitable (8 of the 15 lowest funds); SSGA (2 funds);
• Medium Risk Funds: Phoenix Life (8 of the 15 lowest performing funds); ReAssure (3 funds); Zurich (2 funds)
• Low-Medium Risk Funds: Phoenix Life (10 of the lowest performing 15 funds)
• Low Risk Funds: ReAssure (5 of the 15 lowest performing funds) Phoenix (3 funds); L&G (3 funds)

Overall, no one provider stood out as faring significantly better – or worse – than others.

Looking for NEST and The People’s Pension?

As of early 2025, over 13 million people have a workplace pension with NEST (National Employment Savings Trust), making it the largest workplace pension provider in the UK. It manages approximately £49.7 billion in assets.

As of early 2026, more than 7 million people have their workplace pension with The People’s Pension, making it one of the largest master trusts in the UK. The organisation supports 100,000+ employers and manages more than £39 billion in assets.

While these two popular workplace pension providers don’t feature in the charts highlighting the top and worst performing funds, they do manage some stand-out funds which reasonably allow them to say they are among the best workplace pension funds in the UK.

NEST fund performance

• The NEST Sharia Pn GTR in GB fund = ranks 18 out of 5952 Medium-Risk funds
• The NEST Higher Risk Pn GTR in GB fund = ranks 38 out of 4450 Medium Risk funds
• The NEST 2040 Retirement Pn GTR in GB fund = ranks 151 out of 4450 Medium Risk funds
• The NEST Ethical Growth Pn GTR in GB fund = ranks 295 out of 4450 Medium Risk funds

The NEST Lower Growth Pn GTR in GB fund, however, has not done as well, ranking 326 out of 445 Medium-Low Risk funds.

The People’s Pension fund performance

• The People’s Pension Shariah 0.5% Pn GTR in GB fund = ranked 16 out of 5952 Medium-High Risk funds

The put it in the top 0.3% of all the funds we analysed in the Medium-High Risk category, just outside the top 15 table listings.

At the other end of the scale, however:

• The People’s Pension Annuity 0.5% Pn GTR in GB fund = ranked 5945 out of 5952 Medium-High Risk funds, making it one of the worst performing funds in that category

The other funds had mixed performances:

• The People’s Pension Global Investments (up to 85% shares) 0.5% Pn GTR in GB fund = ranked 162 out of 4450 Medium Risk funds
• The People’s Pension Cash 0.5% Pn GTR in GB fund = ranked 316 out of 624 Low Risk funds
• The People’s Pension Ethical 0.5% Pn GTR in GB fund = ranked 465 out of 5952 Medium-High Risk funds
• The People’s Pension Global Investments (up to 100% shares) 0.5% Pn GTR in GB fund = ranked 1501 out of 5952 Medium-High Risk funds
• The People’s Pension Global Investments (up to 60% shares) 0.5% Pn GTR in GB fund = ranked 559 out of 4450 Medium Risk funds
• The People’s Pension Pre-Retirement 0.5% Pn GTR in GB fund = ranked 2348 out of 4450 Medium Risk funds

If we’re comparing NEST vs The People’s Pension, NEST has done better, with funds achieving significantly higher rankings on average.

A significant majority of UK workplace pension savers are enrolled in their provider’s default investment fund. For instance, in the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST), the UK’s largest workplace pension provider, 99% of members are invested in the default fund. Similarly, The People’s Pension reports that 98.61% of its members are in the default fund.

However, default funds are based on the likely best interests of the ‘average’ pension saver. They do not consider individual aspirations for retirement, or individual attitudes towards risk, which could vary widely from person to person. It’s the equivalent of buying a ‘one-size-fits-all’ pair of jeans.

As a result, many savers remain in default funds that are not a good fit. For example, a saver may be in a fund that is:

• Overly cautious
• Exposing their money to too much risk
• Costing them too much in fees
• Not well suited to their circumstances

That can result in lost growth that equals thousands of lost pounds at retirement.

For all press enquiries, please contact: antonia@investinginsiders.co.uk