Fund-vs-fund · Diversified
Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund vs Milford Conservative 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 Milford Conservative Fund holds 23.37% in growth assets, classifying it as a conservative portfolio anchored in fixed income — its top holdings are all New Zealand government and local government bonds. The Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund sits at the opposite end of the spectrum, with 98.37% in growth assets and top positions in global equities including NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft, alongside Fisher & Paykel Healthcare. This divergence in construction is reflected directly in their risk indicators: Milford Conservative carries a rating of 3 out of 7, while Booster Socially Responsible High Growth carries a 5 out of 7.
The five-year return figures follow the same pattern. Booster's fund returned 6.76% per annum over five years against Milford's 2.5%, though higher historical returns in growth-oriented funds are typically accompanied by greater volatility and the possibility of larger short-term losses. Fund sizes are comparable — NZD 939 million versus NZD 873 million respectively — so neither fund presents an obvious liquidity distinction at this snapshot.
Fees differ meaningfully: Milford charges 0.85% annually, while Booster charges 1.35%. Booster's fund is a KiwiSaver scheme account fund; the Milford fund is a retail managed fund — investors should confirm which vehicle suits their circumstances. Both funds sit within the Diversified category but represent opposite ends of its risk-return spectrum.
Always verify current fees, returns, and holdings against each fund's 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
- Milford Conservative Fund charges 0.50% lower in annual fund charges (0.85% vs 1.35%).
- Both are New Zealand PIE funds — investor tax is capped at the Prescribed Investor Rate (PIR), maximum 28%.
- Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund applies responsible-investment / ESG screening. The other fund does not.
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
Booster
1.35%
Highest 15% of cohort
Milford
0.85%
Lower half of cohort
5-year return p.a.
Past performance — not a predictor
Booster
6.76%
Top 11% over 5 years
Milford
2.50%
Lower half over 5 years
Fund size
Larger = more stable, lower close-risk
Booster
NZ$873m
Largest 11% in cohort
Milford
NZ$939m
Largest 8% in cohort
| Metric | Booster | Milford | Lower / higher is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual fund charge | 1.35% | 0.85% | Lower is better |
| Risk indicator (1–7) | 5 | 3 | Higher = more volatility |
| 5-year return p.a. | 6.76% | 2.50% | Higher is better (past not future) |
| Fund size | NZ$873m | NZ$939m | Larger = more stable, lower close-risk |
| Growth / income split | 98% / 2% | 23% / 77% | 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 | Yes | 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
1
of each fund's top 10
Booster weight in shared
2.0%
of Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund top 10 is shared
Milford weight in shared
3.0%
of Milford Conservative Fund top 10 is shared
| Holding | Booster | Milford |
|---|---|---|
| NC NZ Cash (BNZ Bank Trust Account) NZ | 2.02% | 2.97% |
"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
Booster
Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund
The Socially Responsible High Growth Fund is suited to investors who seek potentially higher returns on average over long term periods (ten years plus), allowing for short to medium term ups and downs, whilst excluding investments which do not satisfy certain socially responsible investment criteria. We aim to achieve this by investing predominantly in growth assets, with little or no allocation to income assets, and the application of our Responsible Investment Policy.Full Booster Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund profile →
Milford
Milford Conservative Fund
The Fund’s objective is to provide moderate returns and protect capital after the base fund fee but before tax over the minimum recommended investment timeframe of three years. It is a diversified fund that primarily invests in fixed interest securities, with a moderate allocation to equities.Full Milford Milford Conservative Fund profile →
Documents
Crawled directly from each manager's website. How we record provenance →
Booster
Milford
LiveLast verified 2026-05-08
Common questions
What's the difference between the Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund and the Milford Conservative Fund?
Which fund has lower fees, Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund or Milford Conservative 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?
