Skip to main content
ManagedFunds.nz

Fund-vs-fund · Australasian Equities

Clarity New Zealand Equity Fund vs Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund

Both are Australasian Equities 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 geographic scope. Despite sharing the Australasian Equities category, the Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund explicitly spans both New Zealand and Australian listed companies — its top five holdings include National Australia Bank alongside NZ names — while the Clarity New Zealand Equity Fund concentrates solely on New Zealand equities, with its disclosed holdings confined entirely to NZ-listed companies. Investors seeking pure NZ equity exposure will find meaningfully different underlying market risk between the two.

On returns, the five-year figures diverge noticeably: Clarity recorded 1.68% per annum against Pathfinder's 0.45% per annum over the same period, though past performance does not indicate future performance and the differing geographic mandates partly explain this gap. Annual fund charges are close but not identical — Pathfinder charges 1.00% and Clarity 1.06%. Both carry a risk indicator of 4 (on a 1–7 scale) and hold identical growth-asset weightings of 98.31%. Fund sizes are similarly matched at approximately NZD 12.4 million and NZD 12.6 million respectively.

The Pathfinder fund applies an ethical screening overlay, which its name signals; Clarity's latest QFU does not disclose a comparable exclusion framework in this data snapshot. Both funds share Fisher & Paykel Healthcare and Auckland International Airport in their top holdings, though Clarity assigns notably higher weights to each — 13.53% versus 9.4% for FPH, and 8.48% versus 4.6% for the airport.

Verify all figures against each fund's current PDS 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

  • Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund charges 0.06% lower in annual fund charges (1.00% vs 1.06%).
  • Both are New Zealand PIE funds — investor tax is capped at the Prescribed Investor Rate (PIR), maximum 28%.
  • Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund applies responsible-investment / ESG screening. The other fund does not.

Where each fund sits in its cohort

Percentile rank vs all 58 australasian equities funds we've matched on Sorted Smart Investor. Mechanical only — no opinion, no forward-looking view.

Annual fund charge

Lower is better

Clarity

1.06%

Upper half of cohort

Pathfinder

1.00%

Lower half of cohort

5-year return p.a.

Past performance — not a predictor

Clarity

1.68%

Upper half over 5 years

Pathfinder

0.45%

Lower half over 5 years

Fund size

Larger = more stable, lower close-risk

Clarity

NZ$13m

Smallest 13% in cohort

Pathfinder

NZ$12m

Smallest 11% in cohort

Metric Clarity Pathfinder Lower / higher is
Annual fund charge 1.06% 1.00% Lower is better
Risk indicator (1–7) 4 4 Higher = more volatility
5-year return p.a. 1.68% 0.45% Higher is better
(past not future)
Fund size NZ$13m NZ$12m 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.

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

5

of each fund's top 10

Clarity weight in shared

42.1%

of Clarity New Zealand Equity Fund top 10 is shared

Pathfinder weight in shared

26.9%

of Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund top 10 is shared

Holding Clarity Pathfinder
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd NZ
13.53% 9.40%
Infratil Ltd Infratil Ltd NZ
9.44% 4.97%
Auckland International Airport Ltd Auckland International Airport Ltd NZ
8.48% 4.60%
Ebos Group Ltd Ebos Group Ltd NZ
4.34% 4.01%
Contact Energy Ltd Contact Energy Ltd NZ
6.33% 3.87%

"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

Clarity

Clarity New Zealand Equity Fund

The Fund will provide actively managed exposure to New Zealand equities. The Fund aims to generate a better return than the benchmark over the medium to long term. We intend for the Fund to make quarterly income distributions.
Full Clarity Clarity New Zealand Equity Fund profile →

Pathfinder

Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund

The Fund invests in Australasian equities, listed property companies and other assets that satisfy Pathfinder’s ethical investment criteria. This is a high-conviction fund of top investment ideas. The Fund may achieve this by investing in Pathfinders Wholesale Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund.
Full Pathfinder Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund profile →

Documents

Crawled directly from each manager's website. How we record provenance →

Common questions

What's the difference between the Clarity New Zealand Equity Fund and the Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund?
Both are australasian equities funds available to NZ retail investors. Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund charges 0.06% lower in annual fund charges (1.00% vs 1.06%).
Which fund has lower fees, Clarity New Zealand Equity Fund or Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund?
Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund has the lower annual fund charge (1.00% p.a. vs 1.06% p.a.). Source: each fund's most recent Quarterly Fund Update on the FMA Disclose register.
How do the 5-year returns compare?
Clarity New Zealand Equity Fund's 5-year return p.a. is 1.68% and Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund's is 0.45% (after fees, before tax). Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Are both funds PIE-taxed in NZ?
Yes. Both are NZ Portfolio Investment Entities (PIEs). Investor tax on the fund's income is capped at the Prescribed Investor Rate (PIR), maximum 28%.
Does either fund apply responsible-investment screening?
Yes — Pathfinder Ethical Trans-Tasman Fund applies responsible-investment / ESG screening. Clarity New Zealand Equity Fund does not. Specific exclusions and engagement policies are documented in each fund's Statement of Investment Policy and Objectives (SIPO).
Where can I read the official documents for these funds?
Both funds publish their Product Disclosure Statement (PDS), Statement of Investment Policy (SIPO) and Quarterly Fund Update (QFU) on the FMA Disclose register at disclose-register.companiesoffice.govt.nz. Always read the current PDS before investing.
FinanceAdvisers.co.nz logo
Not sure which fund is right for you?
Find a financial adviser on FinanceAdvisers.co.nz
Browse NZ-licensed financial advice providers and search by speciality, location and review.
Important: This comparison is general information only — not personalised financial advice. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. The right fund for you depends on your personal circumstances. Read each fund's Product Disclosure Statement and consider speaking to a licensed financial adviser.