Corporate Adviser, a leading UK industry publication, recently released 10-year performance figures for defined contribution (DC) master trust default funds. 

The 10-Year Reality Check for Industry Giants

What stands out is not just the spread between top and bottom, but where the industry’s largest providers landed. Several well-known names delivered below-average returns over the full decade. The CAPAdata methodology chainlinks defaults where providers have changed strategies during the period, in order to show the actual returns delivered to the majority of active savers. 

Some providers with below-average 10-year figures have since revamped their default fund strategies, and their more recent performance has improved. But the 10-year view, the first of its kind from CAPAdata, captures what members actually received across a full market cycle.

Over the decade to December 2025, Aon’s Managed Core default delivered the highest return at over 232%, equating to an annualised return of 12.76% after charges. LifeSight, the master trust run by WTW, came second with a cumulative return of 226.78%. TPT Retirement Solutions placed third, with its TDF default delivering 182.73%.

At the other end of the table, Now: Pensions returned 88% over the same period, or 6.52% annualised. The average across all providers was 139.37%. Were those return differentials to continue over a 30-year savings period, the same £10,000 contribution would grow to just over £70,000 in the lowest-performing fund and over £450,000 in the highest.

TPT’s third-place finish is notable precisely because it is not one of the market’s largest providers. Philip Smith, DC Director at TPT Retirement Solutions, has been direct about what the data shows:

“For a long time, scale and low cost have carried a built-in assumption of safety. Big feels credible. Cheap feels efficient. Both are easy to defend. But member outcomes are what matter, and outcomes like these are a reminder that size and price do not, on their own, define value.”

What the £25bn Consolidation Debate Gets Wrong

The UK Government has made pension scheme consolidation a central pillar of its reform agenda. The Pension Schemes Bill requires DC multi-employer schemes to hold at least £25 billion in their main default arrangement by 2030 or risk losing their qualifying status for auto-enrolment. The stated aim is to create fewer, larger, and better-run schemes that deliver improved value for members.

The logic behind this is that scale brings cost efficiencies, greater bargaining power with asset managers, and the resources to build more sophisticated investment capabilities. These are reasonable theoretical benefits. But the CAPAdata table complicates the picture. If size were a reliable predictor of performance, the largest providers would dominate the top of the table. They do not.

The factors that more plausibly explain a 144-percentage-point spread over a decade within the same regulatory framework are process-level factors: investment strategy, asset allocation decisions, governance oversight, and the ability to execute a coherent approach across different market conditions. These are not qualities that automatically improve with scale.

TPT’s result, alongside Aon and LifeSight, suggests that well-governed funds with disciplined investment processes can deliver competitive outcomes regardless of their position on the AUM league table. That does not prove smaller funds will always outperform larger ones. But it does challenge the assumption that consolidation into bigger vehicles is, by itself, a path to better member outcomes.

What Pension Savers Can Learn From the Results

While past performance does not guarantee future returns, the CAPAdata findings highlight an important principle for pension savers: bigger is not always better. The size of a pension scheme may offer certain advantages, but it does not automatically translate into stronger long-term investment outcomes.

The results also reinforce the importance of looking beyond headline measures such as cost and scale. Factors such as investment strategy, governance, asset allocation, and decision-making processes can play a significant role in determining how pension savings grow over time.

For employers, trustees, and pension savers alike, the findings serve as a reminder that value should be assessed through member outcomes, not just assumptions about size alone. As the industry continues to evolve and consolidation gathers pace, maintaining a focus on long-term performance and effective governance will remain essential.

This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Past performance is not indicative of future results.