Fund-vs-fund · Diversified
Foundation Series Growth Fund vs NZ Funds Wealth Builder - Growth Strategy
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 cost. Foundation Series Growth Fund discloses an annual fund charge of 0.38%, while NZ Funds Wealth Builder – Growth Strategy discloses 2.14% — a gap of 1.76 percentage points that compounds materially over time regardless of market conditions.
Despite carrying a higher fee, NZ Funds Wealth Builder – Growth Strategy reported a five-year annualised return of 0.96% against Foundation Series Growth Fund's 6.31% over the same period, though past performance does not predict future results. The risk profiles also diverge: Foundation Series sits at a risk indicator of 4 (out of 7), while NZ Funds sits at 6, reflecting its higher volatility profile. This is consistent with asset allocation — NZ Funds holds 98.31% in growth assets versus 78.48% for Foundation Series, yet the return outcome over five years runs in the opposite direction to what higher risk might typically imply.
Portfolio construction differs substantially. Foundation Series concentrates exposure through three ESG-labelled ETFs covering US equities, international equities, and global bonds. NZ Funds Wealth Builder's largest disclosed positions include Goldman Sachs Futures (13.41%) and Goldman Sachs OTC Derivatives (6.01%), indicating a derivatives-heavy, actively managed approach. Fund sizes are broadly comparable at NZ$62.4 million and NZ$58.2 million respectively.
Both funds sit in the Diversified category but represent meaningfully different strategies, cost structures, and risk levels. Verify all figures against each fund's current PDS and latest Quarterly Fund Update on FMA Disclose before relying on any of this data.
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
- Foundation Series Growth Fund charges 1.76% lower in annual fund charges (0.38% vs 2.14%).
- Both are New Zealand PIE funds — investor tax is capped at the Prescribed Investor Rate (PIR), maximum 28%.
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
Foundation Series
0.38%
Lowest 17% of cohort
NZ Funds
2.14%
Highest 1% of cohort
5-year return p.a.
Past performance — not a predictor
Foundation Series
6.31%
Top 15% over 5 years
NZ Funds
0.96%
Bottom 8% over 5 years
Fund size
Larger = more stable, lower close-risk
Foundation Series
NZ$62m
Upper half by size
NZ Funds
NZ$58m
Upper half by size
| Metric | Foundation Series | NZ Funds | Lower / higher is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual fund charge | 0.38% | 2.14% | Lower is better |
| Risk indicator (1–7) | 4 | 6 | Higher = more volatility |
| 5-year return p.a. | 6.31% | 0.96% | Higher is better (past not future) |
| Fund size | NZ$62m | NZ$58m | Larger = more stable, lower close-risk |
| Growth / income split | 78% / 22% | 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 | 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
2
of each fund's top 10
Foundation Series weight in shared
2.2%
of Foundation Series Growth Fund top 10 is shared
NZ Funds weight in shared
9.4%
of NZ Funds Wealth Builder - Growth Strategy top 10 is shared
| Holding | Foundation Series | NZ Funds |
|---|---|---|
 Mercer Macquarie NZ Cash Fund NZ | 1.62% | 4.69% |
| $ Cash at Bank (BNZ) NZ | 0.60% | 4.69% |
"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
Foundation Series
Foundation Series Growth Fund
Aims for high long-run returns by investing in a diversified portfolio weighted towards growth assets but with some income asset exposure. The Fund incorporates certain responsible investment considerations and is exposed to investment strategies that seek to limit exposure to companies involved in specific business practices.Full Foundation Series Foundation Series Growth Fund profile →
NZ Funds
NZ Funds Wealth Builder - Growth Strategy
The objective of the NZ Funds Wealth Builder - Growth Strategy is to grow your investment over the long term by investing in growth assets and other authorised assets with active management. The fund is anticipated to mainly own and trade New Zealand, Australian and international shares and/or hedge funds over the minimum suggested timeframe.Full NZ Funds NZ Funds Wealth Builder - Growth Strategy profile →
Documents
Crawled directly from each manager's website. How we record provenance →
Common questions
What's the difference between the Foundation Series Growth Fund and the NZ Funds Wealth Builder - Growth Strategy?
Which fund has lower fees, Foundation Series Growth Fund or NZ Funds Wealth Builder - Growth Strategy?
How do the 5-year returns compare?
Are both funds PIE-taxed in NZ?
Where can I read the official documents for these funds?
