Fund-vs-fund · Australasian Equities
Amova Concentrated Equity Fund vs Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund
Both are Australasian Equities funds available to NZ retail investors. Numbers below are sourced from the FMA Disclose register via Sorted Smart Investor and reflect the latest published quarterly fund updates.
Why these two differ
The most material structural difference between these two funds is their risk profile. The Amova Concentrated Equity Fund carries a risk indicator of 5, while the Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund sits at 4 on the same 1–7 scale — a meaningful distinction within the same Australasian Equities category, reflecting Amova's more concentrated position sizing. Amova's largest single holding, Infratil Limited, represents 11.9% of the portfolio, and its top five holdings collectively account for roughly 44% of assets. Pathfinder's top five are more spread, with Fisher & Paykel Healthcare at 8.98% and no single name exceeding 9%, suggesting broader diversification despite an identical growth-assets allocation of 98.31% for both funds.
On fees, Amova charges 1.15% annually versus Pathfinder's 1.00%, a 15-basis-point difference that compounds over time at comparable fund sizes — both funds sit near NZD 13.2–13.3 million. Five-year returns as reported in each fund's latest Quarterly Fund Update show Pathfinder at 1.73% versus Amova at 0.65%, though past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. Pathfinder's mandate explicitly incorporates ethical screening, which may exclude securities available to Amova and shapes its investment universe differently. The PDS URL associated with the Amova fund data references a Nikko AM document, which appears inconsistent with the Amova branding — investors should confirm they are reviewing the correct disclosure document.
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.
Cached comparison generated 2026-05-21 from each fund's latest FMA Disclose QFU. Regenerated when the underlying facts change.
What's different at a glance
- Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund charges 0.15% lower in annual fund charges (1.00% vs 1.15%).
- Both are New Zealand PIE funds — investor tax is capped at the Prescribed Investor Rate (PIR), maximum 28%.
- Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund applies responsible-investment / ESG screening. The other fund does not.
Where each fund sits in its cohort
Percentile rank vs all 58 australasian equities funds we've matched on Sorted Smart Investor. Mechanical only — no opinion, no forward-looking view.
Annual fund charge
Lower is better
Amova
1.15%
Upper half of cohort
Pathfinder
1.00%
Lower half of cohort
5-year return p.a.
Past performance — not a predictor
Amova
0.65%
Lower half over 5 years
Pathfinder
0.45%
Lower half over 5 years
Fund size
Larger = more stable, lower close-risk
Amova
NZ$13m
Smallest 15% in cohort
Pathfinder
NZ$12m
Smallest 11% in cohort
| Metric | Amova | Pathfinder | Lower / higher is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual fund charge | 1.15% | 1.00% | Lower is better |
| Risk indicator (1–7) | 5 | 4 | Higher = more volatility |
| 5-year return p.a. | 0.65% | 0.45% | Higher is better (past not future) |
| Fund size | NZ$13m | NZ$12m | Larger = more stable, lower close-risk |
| Growth / income split | 98% / 2% | 98% / 2% | More growth = higher long-run return + volatility |
| NZ tax structure | PIE (PIR-capped) | PIE (PIR-capped) | PIE = simpler. FIF = annual return. |
| Currency hedging | — | — | Hedged smooths NZD/foreign FX moves at a small cost. |
| Responsible investment screening | No | Yes | Specific exclusions live in each fund's SIPO. |
| Available via | Direct | Direct | Platforms accepting retail subscriptions. |
Portfolio overlap
How many top-10 positions both funds hold, and at what weight. Computed from each fund's most recently disclosed top-10 holdings — exact-name matched (Microsoft Corp. = Microsoft Corporation), with a Cash / Cash & Equivalents collapse rule.
Matching holdings
2
of each fund's top 10
Amova weight in shared
20.0%
of Amova Concentrated Equity Fund top 10 is shared
Pathfinder weight in shared
8.8%
of Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund top 10 is shared
| Holding | Amova | Pathfinder |
|---|---|---|
 Infratil Limited NZ | 11.90% | 4.97% |
 Contact Energy Limited NZ | 8.13% | 3.87% |
"Min weight" = the smaller of the two weights — a conservative read of how much exposure you'd have to that position if you held both funds.
What each fund says it does
Amova
Amova Concentrated Equity Fund
The fund aims to outperform the RBNZ Official Cash Rate plus 5.0% per annum over a rolling three-year period before fees, expenses and taxes. This fund aims to provide investors with concentrated exposure to New Zealand and Australian equity markets from an actively managed investment portfolio.Full Amova Amova Concentrated Equity Fund profile →
Pathfinder
Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund
The Fund invests in Australasian equities, listed property companies and other assets that satisfy Pathfinder’s ethical investment criteria. This is a high-conviction fund of top investment ideas. The Fund may achieve this by investing in Pathfinders Wholesale Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund.Full Pathfinder Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund profile →
Documents
Crawled directly from each manager's website. How we record provenance →
Amova
Pathfinder
LiveLast verified 2026-05-08
- Supporting document490 kB · file fingerprint recorded
- Supporting document5160 kB · file fingerprint recorded
- Supporting document6356 kB · file fingerprint recorded
- Supporting document11086 kB · file fingerprint recorded
- Supporting document13994 kB · file fingerprint recorded
- Supporting document11709 kB · file fingerprint recorded
- + 9 more on the fund page
Common questions
What's the difference between the Amova Concentrated Equity Fund and the Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund?
Which fund has lower fees, Amova Concentrated Equity Fund or Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund?
How do the 5-year returns compare?
Are both funds PIE-taxed in NZ?
Does either fund apply responsible-investment screening?
Where can I read the official documents for these funds?
