Fund-vs-fund · International Equities
AMP International Shares Managed FundvsKernel Global ESG Fund
AMP International Shares Managed Fund (fund size NZ$11.0 million, annual fund charge 0.79%) and Kernel Global ESG Fund (fund size NZ$13.4 million, annual fund charge 0.25%) are both international equities 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 14.32% and 14.23%, per their quarterly fund updates filed on FMA Disclose.
How much do these two overlap?
They hold 296 of the same securities. If you held both, roughly 50.5% 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 International | Kernel Global | Min weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nvidia | 5.48% | 5.52% | 5.48% |
| Apple | 4.84% | 4.53% | 4.53% |
| Alphabet | 3.86% | 4.92% | 3.86% |
| Microsoft | 3.30% | 4.83% | 3.30% |
| Amazon.com | 2.69% | 2.39% | 2.39% |
| Tesla | 1.40% | 2.33% | 1.40% |
| Broadcom | 1.87% | 1.38% | 1.38% |
| Visa | 0.75% | 1.86% | 0.75% |
| ASML Holding | 0.75% | 0.98% | 0.75% |
| Cisco Systems | 0.70% | 0.95% | 0.70% |
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 cost. The Kernel Global ESG Fund discloses an annual fund charge of 0.25%, while the AMP International Shares Managed Fund discloses 0.79% — a gap of 0.54 percentage points that, compounded over time, can meaningfully affect net returns in an otherwise similarly constructed portfolio. Both funds sit at risk indicator 5 on the standard 1–7 scale and allocate nearly all assets to growth: Kernel at 98.37% and AMP at 98.31%.
The Kernel fund carries an explicit ESG mandate, which shapes its index selection and excludes certain securities on environmental, social, and governance grounds; the AMP fund's latest Quarterly Fund Update does not indicate a comparable screening approach. Despite this, the disclosed top-five holdings are strikingly similar — Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet appear in both — though weightings and share classes differ slightly (Kernel holds Alphabet Class A; AMP holds Class C).
Fund size is comparable: Kernel sits at approximately NZD 13.4 million and AMP at approximately NZD 10.97 million. Five-year return data is not available in the current snapshot for either fund, so historical performance cannot be compared here. Neither fund is a KiwiSaver scheme account in the data provided for AMP; Kernel's PDS URL references a KiwiSaver equities document, so investors should confirm the specific offer they are considering.
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.
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 Global ESG Fund charges 0.54% lower in annual fund charges (0.25% vs 0.79%).
- Both are New Zealand PIE funds — investor tax is capped at the Prescribed Investor Rate (PIR), maximum 28%.
- Kernel Global ESG Fund applies responsible-investment / ESG screening. The other fund does not.
Where each fund sits in its cohort
Percentile rank vs all 84 international equities funds we've matched on Sorted Smart Investor. Mechanical only — no opinion, no forward-looking view.
Annual fund charge
Lower is better
AMP
0.79%
Upper half of cohort
Kernel
0.25%
Lowest 15% of cohort
5-year return p.a.
Past performance — not a predictor
AMP
—
—
Kernel
—
—
Fund size
Larger = more stable, lower close-risk
AMP
NZ$11m
Smallest 8% in cohort
Kernel
NZ$13m
Smallest 11% in cohort
| Metric | AMP | Kernel | Lower / higher is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual fund charge | 0.79% | 0.25% | Lower is better |
| Risk indicator (1–7) | 5 | 5 | Higher = more volatility |
| 5-year return p.a. | — | — | Higher is better (past not future) |
| Fund size | NZ$11m | NZ$13m | 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. |
What each fund says it does
AMP
AMP International Shares Managed Fund
This is a single sector fund with exposure to a diversified international equities portfolio. The fund aims to achieve long term capital growth through exposure to equities of companies listed on stock exchanges around the world.Full AMP AMP International Shares Managed Fund profile →
Kernel
Kernel Global ESG Fund
The Kernel Global ESG Fund�s investment objective is to provide a return (before tax, fees and expenses) that closely matches the return on the S&P World Net Zero 2050 Paris-Aligned ESG ex non-pharma Animal Testing (PAB Ex AT) (NZD) IndexFull Kernel Kernel Global ESG Fund profile →
Documents
Crawled directly from each manager's website. How we record provenance →
Common questions
What's the difference between the AMP International Shares Managed Fund and the Kernel Global ESG Fund?
Which fund has lower fees, AMP International Shares Managed Fund or Kernel Global ESG Fund?
Are both funds PIE-taxed in NZ?
Does either fund apply responsible-investment screening?
Where can I read the official documents for these funds?
