'Which is the cheapest?' – the most common and most misleading question. The forms' cost logic is genuinely different: they deduct in different places, for different things, in different ways. A fair comparison doesn't look for the smallest number – it asks three questions. Here's the method, without provider figures.
- The three comparison questions: what's the total cost burden? what does the support add? what does the service include?
- For insurance the yardstick is the TKM, for the fund it's the operating-cost ratio, for NYESZ it's the account and transaction fees.
- The net picture is what decides it: cost AND support AND content together – the shape of the formula differs by form.
First question: what's the total cost burden?
The metric differs by form: for pension insurance it's the TKM (for the same term, with the range), for the fund it's the operating-cost ratio and the portfolios' asset-based cost, for NYESZ it's the account fee and transaction costs, and for government bonds the cost is effectively close to zero. The source of the figures should always be the official disclosure – not assumptions.
The trap is conflating them: the TKM and the fund's cost ratio aren't the same kind of measure – they can't be compared directly, only understood within the full picture.
Second question: what does the support add?
For the supported forms, the credit is the counterweight to the costs: 20% a year (up to each form's cap), under the rules in force. Compounded over the long run, the credit meaningfully improves the net picture – but not without limit: the credit doesn't rescue an expensive design, and it can also be forfeited on an early exit.
So the right structure for comparison is: (cost burden) minus (support side), worked through fully at your own term and contribution level – which is exactly what we do together, with your own numbers, in the comparison table.
Third question: what does the service include?
Cost never stands alone: NYESZ's low fee buys self-service; the fund's moderate cost buys ready-made portfolios; insurance's higher cost buys guidance, a framework, insurance elements and a fixed retirement age in force at signing. The question isn't which number is smaller – it's which package is worth its price to you.
This is also a matter of taste and life situation – but make it a conscious decision: paying and knowing why is better than getting something cheap that you won't use.
The method, summed up
- A metric per form, from an official source – without conflating them.
- The support side added in – at your own contribution level.
- Service content weighed – what would you actually use?
- A sensitivity test: what happens if you need to make a change in 5 years? (flexibility, exit costs)
We deliberately don't publish specific providers' figures here – those come to the table fresh, and valid for your situation, when you request a quote. The method, however, stays constant – and can be checked against any offer.
A question about your own situation? Book a free 20-minute consultation →
