Fund-vs-fund · Diversified
Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund vs Simplicity Growth 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 allocation to growth assets. The Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund holds 98.37% in growth assets, compared to 78.48% for the Simplicity Growth Investment Fund — a gap of nearly 20 percentage points. This divergence is reflected in their risk indicators: Booster sits at 5 and Simplicity at 4 on the standardised scale, meaning Booster carries a higher stated risk profile despite both funds sitting within the Diversified category.
The fee difference is also significant. Simplicity charges an annual fund charge of 0.25%, while Booster charges 1.35% — a difference of 1.10 percentage points annually. Over long timeframes, this gap compounds materially against net returns. Five-year returns partially offset this picture: Booster returned 6.76% per annum versus Simplicity's 6.00%, though past performance is not indicative of future returns and the higher-growth-asset weighting partially explains the higher return alongside the higher risk.
Booster's PDS URL references KiwiSaver scheme documentation, suggesting this fund is structured as a KiwiSaver scheme account product; Simplicity's equivalent is labelled an Investment Fund, which may have different access and eligibility rules. Fund size differs — Simplicity at NZD 1.285 billion versus Booster at NZD 873 million. Both share common large-cap holdings including Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare. Simplicity's largest single holding is Simplicity Living Ltd at 6.76%, a related-party position that does not appear in Booster's disclosed top five.
Verify all figures against each fund's current PDS 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 Growth 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
6.00%
Top 18% over 5 years
Fund size
Larger = more stable, lower close-risk
Booster
NZ$873m
Largest 11% in cohort
Simplicity
NZ$1.29b
Largest 7% 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% | 6.00% | Higher is better (past not future) |
| Fund size | NZ$873m | NZ$1.29b | Larger = more stable, lower close-risk |
| Growth / income split | 98% / 2% | 78% / 22% | 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
17.0%
of Simplicity Growth Investment Fund top 10 is shared
| Holding | Booster | Simplicity |
|---|---|---|
 NVIDIA Corp US | 3.36% | 3.84% |
 Apple Inc US | 2.87% | 3.45% |
 Microsoft Corporation US | 2.34% | 2.59% |
 Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Corporation Limited NZ | 3.23% | 2.30% |
 Amazon.Com Inc US | 1.92% | 1.89% |
| NC NZ Cash (BNZ Bank Trust Account) NZ | 2.02% | 1.62% |
 Auckland International Airport Limited NZ | 2.00% | 1.35% |
"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 Growth Investment Fund
The Growth Fund provides investors with a limited exposure to income assets, but most of its investments are in growth assets.Full Simplicity Simplicity Growth Investment Fund profile →
Common questions
What's the difference between the Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund and the Simplicity Growth Investment Fund?
Which fund has lower fees, Booster Socially Responsible High Growth Fund or Simplicity Growth 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?
