Risk · 3 min read
Aggressive vs Growth. what's the actual difference?
Both are share-heavy, both are for long-horizon investors. Here's how they differ and which one fits which situation.
Smiths Insurance and KiwiSaver
Published 25 February 2026 · FAP licensed · FSP712931
Aggressive and Growth funds look similar at first glance. both are mostly shares, both are for long-term investors. But the difference between them is real, and picking the wrong one can cost you.
The short version
- Growth: typically 75-90% growth assets (shares + property), 10-25% income assets (bonds + cash).
- Aggressive: typically 90%+ growth assets, near zero income assets.
The Aggressive fund will return more in good years and lose more in bad years. Over 30 years, an Aggressive fund typically outperforms a Growth fund by 0.5-1.0% per year. which is a huge gap when compounded.
Who should pick which
- Aggressive: 10+ year horizon, you can stomach a 30%+ drawdown without panic-selling, no near-term cash needs from KiwiSaver.
- Growth: 7+ year horizon, prefer slightly less drama, want a small bond allocation for cushioning.
The single biggest predictor of long-term returns is staying invested through downturns. If you're not sure you'd hold through a 35% drop, pick Growth instead of Aggressive. the slightly lower expected return is worth the better behaviour.
The NZ leaders
Best Growth funds and Best Aggressive funds have the live rankings, refreshed quarterly.
The Health Check matches you to the right band, plus the right specific fund within that band.
Source: Morningstar KiwiSaver 360, long-run category-average returns by risk band. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. General information only. not personal financial advice.
Want our take on your KiwiSaver?