Fund-vs-fund · Australasian Equities
Fisher Funds Australian Growth Fund vs Mint New Zealand SRI Equity 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 and thematic focus. Fisher Funds Australian Growth Fund concentrates on Australian-listed equities — its five largest holdings are all ASX-listed companies spanning resources, financials, technology, and automotive marketplaces, with BHP Group as the anchor position at 8.87%. The Mint New Zealand SRI Equity Fund, despite sharing the same Australasian Equities category, holds exclusively NZX-listed companies in its disclosed top five, with a pronounced tilt toward infrastructure and utilities (Infratil, Contact Energy, Auckland International Airport, Meridian Energy collectively representing roughly 39% of disclosed weight), and applies a socially responsible investment screen that shapes its universe — a constraint absent from the Fisher Funds mandate.
Both funds carry a risk indicator of 5 out of 7 and an identical growth asset allocation of 98.31%, making fee and return figures the next meaningful comparison points. Fisher Funds charges 0.87% annually versus Mint's 0.97%, a 10-basis-point difference. On five-year returns, Fisher Funds discloses 1.31% per annum against Mint's 0.15% per annum — a materially wider gap, though both figures reflect a period that includes significant market volatility and currency effects relevant to each fund's geographic exposure. Fund sizes are comparable: Fisher Funds at NZD 76.7 million, Mint at NZD 71.5 million.
Neither fund is a KiwiSaver scheme account product based on the data provided. Readers should verify all figures, fees, and investment policy details 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
- Fisher Funds Australian Growth Fund charges 0.10% lower in annual fund charges (0.87% vs 0.97%).
- Both are New Zealand PIE funds — investor tax is capped at the Prescribed Investor Rate (PIR), maximum 28%.
- Mint New Zealand SRI Equity 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
Fisher Funds
0.87%
Lower half of cohort
Mint
0.97%
Lower half of cohort
5-year return p.a.
Past performance — not a predictor
Fisher Funds
1.31%
Lower half over 5 years
Mint
0.15%
Bottom 10% over 5 years
Fund size
Larger = more stable, lower close-risk
Fisher Funds
NZ$77m
Upper half by size
Mint
NZ$72m
Lower half by size
| Metric | Fisher Funds | Mint | Lower / higher is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual fund charge | 0.87% | 0.97% | Lower is better |
| Risk indicator (1–7) | 5 | 5 | Higher = more volatility |
| 5-year return p.a. | 1.31% | 0.15% | Higher is better (past not future) |
| Fund size | NZ$77m | NZ$72m | 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.
What each fund says it does
Fisher Funds
Fisher Funds Australian Growth Fund
The fund focuses on growth of your investment over the long term by investing in quality Australian companies which can consistently produce increasing earningsFull Fisher Funds Fisher Funds Australian Growth Fund profile →
Mint
Mint New Zealand SRI Equity Fund
Typically invests in New Zealand-listed equities and has an investment objective of outperforming the S&P/NZX50 Gross Index after fees and expenses over the medium to long term. The Fund is designed to meet specific responsible investment criteria, with the aim of building a portfolio where the holdings in aggregate, generate a better ESG score in our systems than the benchmark.Full Mint Mint New Zealand SRI Equity Fund profile →
Documents
Crawled directly from each manager's website. How we record provenance →
Fisher Funds
LiveLast verified 2026-05-08
Mint
LiveLast verified 2026-05-08
Common questions
What's the difference between the Fisher Funds Australian Growth Fund and the Mint New Zealand SRI Equity Fund?
Which fund has lower fees, Fisher Funds Australian Growth Fund or Mint New Zealand SRI Equity 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?
