Fund-vs-fund · Diversified
Mercer Responsible Balanced Fund vs Octagon Balanced 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 lies in portfolio construction. The Octagon Balanced Fund holds 18.14% of its assets in a single underlying vehicle — the Hunter Global Fixed Interest Fund — making that one position the dominant driver of fixed-income exposure. The Mercer Responsible Balanced Fund, by contrast, shows no single holding above 2.19% (Nvidia Corporation), suggesting a more granular, directly-held or multi-manager structure. Investors sensitive to concentration risk or to the transparency of underlying holdings should examine each fund's full portfolio disclosure carefully.
On fees, Mercer charges 1.25% per annum versus Octagon's 1.17%, an 8 basis-point difference that compounds over time. Both funds carry an identical risk indicator of 4 out of 7 and an identical growth-asset allocation of 53.15%, placing them in the same broad risk band. Over the five-year period disclosed, Mercer returned 3.52% per annum against Octagon's 3.18% — a 34 basis-point difference — though past returns are not a reliable indicator of future performance. Octagon is the larger fund by assets (NZD 37.2 million versus Mercer's NZD 28.4 million). Mercer's name signals a responsible-investment mandate, while Octagon's Vanguard ESG US Stock ETF holding suggests some ESG integration without an explicit responsible-investment label at fund level; neither fund's full exclusion criteria are captured in this snapshot. Neither fund is a KiwiSaver scheme account product based on the data provided.
Verify all figures against the source 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
- Octagon Balanced Fund charges 0.08% lower in annual fund charges (1.17% vs 1.25%).
- Both are New Zealand PIE funds — investor tax is capped at the Prescribed Investor Rate (PIR), maximum 28%.
- Mercer Responsible Balanced 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
Mercer
1.25%
Highest 25% of cohort
Octagon
1.17%
Upper half of cohort
5-year return p.a.
Past performance — not a predictor
Mercer
3.52%
Upper half over 5 years
Octagon
3.18%
Lower half over 5 years
Fund size
Larger = more stable, lower close-risk
Mercer
NZ$28m
Lower half by size
Octagon
NZ$37m
Lower half by size
| Metric | Mercer | Octagon | Lower / higher is |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual fund charge | 1.25% | 1.17% | Lower is better |
| Risk indicator (1–7) | 4 | 4 | Higher = more volatility |
| 5-year return p.a. | 3.52% | 3.18% | Higher is better (past not future) |
| Fund size | NZ$28m | NZ$37m | Larger = more stable, lower close-risk |
| Growth / income split | 53% / 47% | 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
2
of each fund's top 10
Mercer weight in shared
3.4%
of Mercer Responsible Balanced Fund top 10 is shared
Octagon weight in shared
2.9%
of Octagon Balanced Fund top 10 is shared
| Holding | Mercer | Octagon |
|---|---|---|
 Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Corporation Limited NZ | 2.06% | 1.87% |
 Microsoft Corporation US | 1.30% | 1.07% |
"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
Mercer
Mercer Responsible Balanced Fund
The fund is a diversified portfolio with a slightly higher allocation to a mix of growth assets (e.G., shares & listed property) relative to a mix of income assets (e.G., cash & fixed interest). The fund is managed to include specific additional responsible exclusion criteria which aims to avoid investments in certain companies or activities & is managed with reference to ESG factors and has some exposure to investment strategies targeting sustainability themes. This fund has additional exclusions applied as described in our Sustainable Investment Policy and has bFull Mercer Mercer Responsible Balanced Fund profile →
Octagon
Octagon Balanced Fund
The Balanced Fund invests across multiple asset classes. Investors can expect moderate to high levels of movement up and down in value. It aims to achieve long-term returns (before fees, taxes and other expenses) greater than a composite benchmark.Full Octagon Octagon Balanced Fund profile →
Documents
Crawled directly from each manager's website. How we record provenance →
Octagon
Common questions
What's the difference between the Mercer Responsible Balanced Fund and the Octagon Balanced Fund?
Which fund has lower fees, Mercer Responsible Balanced Fund or Octagon Balanced 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?
