Fund-vs-fund · Diversified
AMP Aggressive Managed Fund vs Booster Wealth Balanced Fund
Both are Diversified 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 asset allocation. The AMP Aggressive Managed Fund holds 98.31% in growth assets, reflecting a near-fully equity-oriented mandate consistent with its "Aggressive" label. The Booster Wealth Balanced Fund holds 53.15% in growth assets, with the remainder in income assets — a meaningfully more moderate positioning reflected in its "Balanced" label. Both funds share the same risk indicator of 4 on the FMA's 1–7 scale, which may warrant closer reading of each fund's Statement of Investment Policy and Objectives to understand how that shared indicator is derived given the substantially different allocations.
On fees, AMP charges 0.83% — correction, 0.80% — annually, while Booster charges 0.83%, a marginal 3 basis point difference. Fund sizes are comparable: AMP at approximately NZD 12.3 million and Booster at approximately NZD 11.6 million. Both are relatively small by retail managed fund standards. Five-year return data is absent from the latest Quarterly Fund Update snapshot for both funds, so no historical performance comparison is possible here.
Holdings overlap modestly at the top: NVIDIA Corp, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, and Apple Inc appear in both funds, though at lower weights in Booster, which also lists NZ Cash and NZ Government Stock among its top five — consistent with its income-asset allocation. Neither fund is a KiwiSaver scheme account product based on the data provided.
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.
Comparison generated 2026-07-05 from each fund's FMA Disclose QFU facts as at that date. If the underlying facts change, this narrative is withheld until it is regenerated — the tables on this page always reflect the current data.
What's different at a glance
- Annual fund charges are within 0.05% of each other (0.80% vs 0.83%).
- Both are New Zealand PIE funds — investor tax is capped at the Prescribed Investor Rate (PIR), maximum 28%.
Where each fund sits in its cohort
Percentile rank vs all 67 diversified funds we've matched on Sorted Smart Investor. Mechanical only — no opinion, no forward-looking view.
Annual fund charge
Lower is better
AMP
0.80%
Lower half of cohort
Booster
0.83%
Lower half of cohort
5-year return p.a.
Past performance — not a predictor
AMP
—
—
Booster
—
—
Fund size
Larger = more stable, lower close-risk
AMP
NZ$12m
Smallest 23% in cohort
Booster
NZ$12m
Smallest 22% in cohort
| Metric | AMP | Booster | Lower / higher is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual fund charge | 0.80% | 0.83% | Lower is better |
| Risk indicator (1–7) | 4 | 4 | Higher = more volatility |
| 5-year return p.a. | — | — | Higher is better (past not future) |
| Fund size | NZ$12m | NZ$12m | Larger = more stable, lower close-risk |
| Growth / income split | 98% / 2% | 53% / 47% | 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 | No | 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
7
of each fund's top 10
AMP weight in shared
14.5%
of AMP Aggressive Managed Fund top 10 is shared
Booster weight in shared
10.4%
of Booster Wealth Balanced Fund top 10 is shared
| Holding | AMP | Booster |
|---|---|---|
 Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Corporation Limited NZ | 2.81% | 2.28% |
 NVIDIA Corp US | 2.84% | 1.75% |
 Apple Inc US | 2.51% | 1.49% |
 Auckland International Airport Limited NZ | 1.78% | 1.41% |
 Infratil Limited NZ | 1.49% | 1.23% |
 Microsoft Corp US | 1.71% | 1.22% |
 Amazon.Com Inc US | 1.40% | 1.00% |
"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
AMP
AMP Aggressive Managed Fund
The fund has a well-diversified portfolio that aims to provide growth, primarily through holding growth assets with a low allocation to income assets. The fund aims to achieve high returns, in exchange there will be larger movements up and down in the value of your investments.Full AMP AMP Aggressive Managed Fund profile →
Booster
Booster Wealth Balanced Fund
The Wealth Balanced Fund is suited to investors who seek a medium level of returns on average over medium term periods (five years plus), allowing for shorter-term ups and downs, whilst excluding investments which do not satisfy certain responsible investment criteria. We aim to achieve this by investing in a mix of income and growth assets, and the application of our Approach to Responsible Investing policy.Full Booster Booster Wealth Balanced Fund profile →
Documents
Crawled directly from each manager's website. How we record provenance →
Common questions
What's the difference between the AMP Aggressive Managed Fund and the Booster Wealth Balanced Fund?
Which fund has lower fees, AMP Aggressive Managed Fund or Booster Wealth Balanced Fund?
Are both funds PIE-taxed in NZ?
Where can I read the official documents for these funds?
