ACI Growth Fund vs Fisher Funds Balanced Fund

The most material structural difference here is data availability: Fisher Funds Balanced Fund returns no disclosed figures in this snapshot — fee, risk indicator, fund size, growth asset allocation, and five-year return are all absent from the data pulled for Fund A, making a symmetrical comparison impossible. Readers should treat what follows as a one-sided profile rather than a true head-to-head.

On the ACI Growth Fund side, the available data shows an annual fund charge of 1.61%, a risk indicator of 4 (on the standard 1–7 scale), a fund size of approximately NZD 7.66 million, and a growth asset allocation of 78.48%, positioning it toward the higher end of a typical balanced-to-growth spectrum. Its five-year return figure is not disclosed in the current snapshot. The top five holdings are dominated by pooled vehicles — Dimensional Emerging Markets Sustainability Trust (13.3%) and Smartshares NZ Core Equity Trust (12.32%) are the largest positions — with a single direct equity, Apple Inc, at 2.74%. This fund-of-funds structure contrasts with direct-equity mandates, though Fund A's holdings are not disclosed here for comparison.

Both funds sit in the Diversified category, but beyond that label, no meaningful fee, return, or allocation comparison can be drawn until Fund A's data is refreshed.

Always verify all figures against each fund's current Product Disclosure Statement and latest Quarterly Fund Update on FMA Disclose before relying on any of this information.