Fund-vs-fund · Diversified
Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund vs Simplicity Balanced Investment 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 Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund holds 98.37% in growth assets, placing it firmly at the aggressive end of the diversified spectrum, while the Simplicity Balanced Investment Fund sits at 53.15% growth assets, reflecting a genuinely balanced posture with meaningful defensive exposure. This distinction is reinforced by their risk indicators: Booster's fund is rated 5 and Simplicity's is rated 4 on the standard 1–7 scale used by FMA Disclose.
The fee gap is equally significant. Simplicity charges an annual fund charge of 0.25%, while Booster's fund charges 1.35% — a difference of 1.10 percentage points annually, which compounds materially over time. Over the five-year period disclosed in each fund's latest Quarterly Fund Update, Booster's fund returned 6.76% per annum against Simplicity's 4.34%, though that return differential must be read alongside the higher risk profile and higher fees of the Booster fund.
By fund size, Booster ($872.7 million) is modestly larger than Simplicity ($737.7 million). Both funds share some overlapping holdings — NVIDIA Corp, Apple Inc, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare appear in each fund's top five. Simplicity's largest single holding is Simplicity Living Ltd Ordinary Shares at 4.66%, a related-party unlisted equity position that investors may wish to examine in the PDS. Booster's fund carries an explicit socially responsible investment mandate, which is not a stated feature of Simplicity's fund.
Verify all figures against each fund's current Product Disclosure Statement and latest Quarterly Fund Update on FMA Disclose before relying on this comparison.
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
- Simplicity Balanced Investment Fund charges 1.10% lower in annual fund charges (0.25% 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
Simplicity
0.25%
Lowest 6% of cohort
5-year return p.a.
Past performance — not a predictor
Booster
6.76%
Top 11% over 5 years
Simplicity
4.34%
Upper half over 5 years
Fund size
Larger = more stable, lower close-risk
Booster
NZ$873m
Largest 11% in cohort
Simplicity
NZ$738m
Largest 13% in cohort
| Metric | Booster | Simplicity | Lower / higher is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual fund charge | 1.35% | 0.25% | Lower is better |
| Risk indicator (1–7) | 5 | 4 | Higher = more volatility |
| 5-year return p.a. | 6.76% | 4.34% | Higher is better (past not future) |
| Fund size | NZ$873m | NZ$738m | 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 | 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
7
of each fund's top 10
Booster weight in shared
17.7%
of Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund top 10 is shared
Simplicity weight in shared
15.1%
of Simplicity Balanced Investment Fund top 10 is shared
| Holding | Booster | Simplicity |
|---|---|---|
 NVIDIA Corp US | 3.36% | 2.85% |
 Apple Inc US | 2.87% | 2.56% |
| NC NZ Cash (BNZ Bank Trust Account) NZ | 2.02% | 3.13% |
 Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Corporation Limited NZ | 3.23% | 2.00% |
 Microsoft Corporation US | 2.34% | 1.92% |
 Amazon.Com Inc US | 1.92% | 1.41% |
 Auckland International Airport Limited NZ | 2.00% | 1.18% |
"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 →
Simplicity
Simplicity Balanced Investment Fund
The Balanced Investment Fund provides investors with an exposure to a mix of growth and income assets.Full Simplicity Simplicity Balanced Investment Fund profile →
Common questions
What's the difference between the Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund and the Simplicity Balanced Investment Fund?
Which fund has lower fees, Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund or Simplicity Balanced Investment 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?
