Copy article

Pension schemes performance league table to be published

ended 13. July 2026

The government has released its plans for pensions, including a league table for pension schemes. View them here.

The centrepiece is a new Value for Money framework designed to drive up standards and ensure savers get the best possible returns. Savers will be able to see how the returns their pension scheme delivers compares to others, while the poorest performing schemes will have to improve or close. Schemes will be assessed on their investment performance, costs and charges, and quality of service, and rated from red (for poor value) through to green (outperforming on value). 

Where they fail to act, regulators can issue compliance notices, levy fines, or in serious cases take steps to wind up the scheme. 

From 2028, larger schemes, including Master Trusts, large single employer schemes, and multi-employer contract-based schemes which are open to new employers, will complete and publish these Value for Money assessments. The changes will be rolled out to all workplace pension schemes from 2029. 

  • What is your reaction to the plans?
  • Do you think assessing every pension scheme and publishing the results will work?
  • Any other thoughts?

Responses asap.

6 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

Editor
David Stirling
Independent Financial Adviser at Mint Wealth
A pension league table is, in principle, a fine idea. The problem is that the government is announcing it in July 2026 and rolling it out from 2028, which means millions of people currently sitting in underperforming schemes will spend the next two years none the wiser. By the time the red-to-green ratings arrive, plenty of savers will have lost returns they will never get back.

The immediate message for anyone with a pension is not to wait for 2028 to find out where their scheme sits. The data on charges and investment performance exists today. If your employer has never reviewed the pension scheme they enrolled you in, ask why. The government is finally shining a light on one of the least scrutinised corners of personal finance. The light switch has always been there, people just never knew to look for it.
Copy

Editor
Nouran Moustafa
Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth
A pension league table could be a powerful disinfectant, but it must not become a beauty contest based on whichever fund performed best last year. Pension investing is long term, and a red, amber or green label can hide important differences in risk, strategy and member needs.

The real win is that schemes will no longer be able to hide mediocre outcomes behind low charges or complicated paperwork. Performance, cost and service should be judged together, with persistent underperformers forced to improve or leave the market.

But publication alone will not protect savers. Employers must act on the results, ratings must use meaningful long-term and risk-adjusted data, and members need plain-English explanations. Done properly, this could raise standards. Done badly, it could trigger herd behaviour and encourage schemes to chase rankings rather than better retirements.
Copy

Editor
Graham Nicoll
Financial Planner, Chartered FCSI at NCL Wealth Partners
The principle of the plan is positive, as this will hold pension schemes more accountable for the value they provide.

The key is what is done with this information by employers once the data is available. Auto-enrolment has helped to get more people across the UK saving for their retirement, but most people are doing this without any engagement with their pension. Having spoken to many potential clients they are unsure whether their pension(s) are invested appropriately, whether they are on track for the retirement they want and what actions they should be taking to close any shortfall. Visibility is good, but education and better employee engagement is just as important.
Copy

Editor
Paul Denley
CEO at Oakham Wealth Management
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and pensions have sat in the shade too long, so transparency on performance, costs and service is welcome.

But league tables come with health warnings. Rank schemes publicly and you risk herding, with trustees hugging the average to avoid a red rating rather than taking the long-term risks that build retirement pots. Value must be judged on net returns over meaningful timeframes, or we risk a race to the bottom on cost at the expense of performance.

Done well, this exposes chronic underperformers charging handsomely for mediocrity and forces them to improve, consolidate or disappear. Few savers shop around, so success rests on regulators acting against persistent failures.
Done badly, it produces a sea of amber that protects mediocrity.

The direction is right. The devil will be in the methodology.
Copy

Editor
Antonia Medlicott
Founder & MD at Investing Insiders
These plans are long overdue, this should have been done years ago as plenty of pension savers are in woefully underperforming default funds. Our own pension performance tables at Investing Insiders revealed a stark difference in the 5-year returns of over 13,000 funds, with the best pension returning 180 per cent profit, but in comparison, the worst lost a staggering 98.59 per cent of its value. This means someone with a £50,000 fund would have just £705 left, whereas if they had the best, their value would increase to £140,140. This represents a difference of 19,778 per cent. With 89 per cent of all pension funds in Medium-High and High risk categories underperforming against the FTSE 100 (6,540 out of 7,370 funds), it proves that pension schemes aren’t working for too many Brits, who are being left shocked in retirement as they will naturally assume their pension will be progressing at a good rate, so more needs to be done to inform people of the volatility of their funds.
Copy

Editor
Scott Gallacher
Director at Rowley Turton
Greater transparency is generally welcome. If poorly run pension schemes improve or leave the market, that's good news for savers.

However, there are two potential concerns. The first is that, for decades, regulators have rightly reminded consumers that past performance is no guide to future returns. Yet these league tables inevitably place significant emphasis on historic investment performance.

The second is the risk of unintended consequences. If schemes know they will be publicly ranked, some may be tempted to take greater investment risk in an attempt to climb the table. That creates a moral hazard, where managers focus on improving a published score rather than delivering the most appropriate long-term outcomes for members.

A pension scheme shouldn't be judged solely on whether it beat its peers over the last few years. Long-term consistency, sensible risk management, good governance and value for members matter just as much.