Fund-vs-fund · Diversified
AMP Growth Managed FundvsKernel Balanced Fund
AMP Growth Managed Fund (fund size NZ$44.2 million, annual fund charge 0.81%) and Kernel Balanced Fund (fund size NZ$44.8 million, annual fund charge 0.25%) are both diversified managed funds, as shown on Sorted Smart Investor on 22 May 2026; for the year to 31 March 2026 their 1-year returns after fees and tax were 10.28% and 10.51%, per their quarterly fund updates filed on FMA Disclose.
How much do these two overlap?
They hold 365 of the same securities. If you held both, roughly 31.2% of your money would be in the same companies — so the diversification you get from holding the pair is smaller than holding two funds suggests.
| Shared holding | AMP Growth | Kernel Balanced | Min weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nvidia | 2.29% | 2.69% | 2.29% |
| Apple | 2.02% | 2.36% | 2.02% |
| Fisher & Paykel Healthcare | 2.83% | 1.76% | 1.76% |
| Alphabet | 1.61% | 1.91% | 1.61% |
| Auckland International Airport | 1.79% | 1.54% | 1.54% |
| Microsoft | 1.38% | 1.74% | 1.38% |
| Infratil | 1.50% | 1.30% | 1.30% |
| Amazon.com | 1.12% | 1.29% | 1.12% |
| Contact Energy | 1.17% | 0.98% | 0.98% |
| a2 Milk | 1.09% | 0.93% | 0.93% |
Min weight is the smaller of the two weightings — if you hold both funds, that is the floor of your exposure to that position. Direct holdings only: anything either fund holds through an underlying fund or ETF is not counted, so the real overlap can only be higher. From each fund's FMA Disclose full portfolio filing.
Why these two differ
The most material structural difference between these two funds is asset allocation. The AMP Growth Managed Fund holds 78.48% in growth assets, placing it firmly in growth territory despite its "diversified" label, while the Kernel Balanced Fund sits at 53.72% growth assets — a genuinely balanced split. Both carry a risk indicator of 4, so the allocation gap does not yet show up in that standardised measure, but it represents a meaningful difference in the underlying risk-return profile an investor accepts.
On fees, the gap is substantial: AMP charges 0.81% per annum versus Kernel's 0.25%. Over a multi-year horizon, that 56-basis-point difference compounds materially against the higher-fee option, all else being equal. Fund sizes are closely matched — AMP at approximately NZD 44.2 million and Kernel at approximately NZD 44.8 million — so neither has a meaningful scale advantage in this snapshot.
Portfolio construction also differs. AMP's top holdings are individual equities (Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, NVIDIA, Apple, Auckland Airport) alongside an inflation-linked New Zealand government bond, suggesting active or semi-active stock selection. Kernel's top positions are ETFs and New Zealand government securities, consistent with a passive, index-based approach. Neither fund discloses a five-year return figure in this snapshot, so historical performance cannot be compared here.
Both funds are registered managed investment schemes; neither is identified in this data as a KiwiSaver scheme account. Verify all figures, including current fees and asset allocation, against each fund's 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
- Kernel Balanced Fund charges 0.56% lower in annual fund charges (0.25% vs 0.81%).
- 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 68 diversified funds we've matched on Sorted Smart Investor. Mechanical only — no opinion, no forward-looking view.
Annual fund charge
Lower is better
AMP
0.81%
Lower half of cohort
Kernel
0.25%
Lowest 6% of cohort
5-year return p.a.
Past performance — not a predictor
AMP
—
—
Kernel
—
—
Fund size
Larger = more stable, lower close-risk
AMP
NZ$44m
Lower half by size
Kernel
NZ$45m
Lower half by size
| Metric | AMP | Kernel | Lower / higher is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual fund charge | 0.81% | 0.25% | 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$44m | NZ$45m | Larger = more stable, lower close-risk |
| Growth / income split | 78% / 22% | 54% / 46% | 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. |
What each fund says it does
AMP
AMP Growth Managed Fund
The fund has a well-diversified portfolio that aims to provide growth, primarily through holding growth assets diversified with a lower allocation to lower-risk income assets. The fund aims to achieve medium to high returns, in exchange there will be larger movements up and down in the value of your investments.Full AMP AMP Growth Managed Fund profile →
Kernel
Kernel Balanced Fund
The fund is designed to provide investors with a diversified exposure to both income and growth assets by investing in domestic and global listed financial products.Full Kernel Kernel Balanced Fund profile →
Documents
Crawled directly from each manager's website. How we record provenance →
Common questions
What's the difference between the AMP Growth Managed Fund and the Kernel Balanced Fund?
Which fund has lower fees, AMP Growth Managed Fund or Kernel Balanced Fund?
Are both funds PIE-taxed in NZ?
Where can I read the official documents for these funds?
