Australian Super (High) Growth also had a good year with 11.573% return but they are not in Chant West’s list. Casts doubt about how good their research is.
AustralianSuper's High Growth option isn't included because it sits in a different category altogether, "High Growth" funds hold 81 to 95 per cent in growth assets, while the rankings in my article were for the "Growth" category, funds sitting at 61 to 80 per cent. So AusSuper's High Growth option was never eligible to be compared against these particular funds, it's genuinely a different peer group with a different risk level.
Their Balanced option is the one that actually sits in the Growth category by Chant West's classification, despite the name "Balanced" suggesting otherwise, which is exactly the naming trap I keep warning people about. That option returned 9.7 per cent for FY26, just under the cutoff for this year's top 10 list, so it was close but didn't quite make the cut this time.
So to directly answer your question, it's not that AustralianSuper underperformed, it's that you’re comparing their High Growth option to the wrong list, and their actual Growth category option had a solid year, just not quite top 10 this time round.
Hope that clears it up. Thanks for your curiosity, it's exactly the kind of question that shows why checking the actual asset mix matters more than the name on the fund, the marketing or the claims funds make in their press releases and emails.
And always remember - I don’t make this data up or collect it myself or draw judgement - I report the data from one of Australia’s most trustworthy superannuation research companies, Chant West. And I’ll always tell you my source so you can dive deeper yourself and question claims - that's really healthy. Fund marketing might in fact tell you their fund is "growth" when it's in fact High Growth to try and get you to compare it with others in a different (lower) category so they look better on face value - or some 'research' companies might in fact be being paid to rate super companies by their 'branded level' (ie compare funds branded BALANCED which are in fact holding more growth assets than a balanced fund) rather than the actual weighting of assets they hold. The only way to compare apples with apples is to look at the weighting of growth assets in the portfolio and compare them by band.
The top 10 performing Balanced superannuation options over the decade to December 2025, as ranked by SuperRatings, are dominated by member-owned industry funds:
Hostplus – Balanced: 8.70% p.a.
Australian Retirement Trust (ART) – Super Savings Balanced: 8.50% p.a.
Hey Mark - that's last year and it's "Balanced" data yet Hostplus is known widely for its balanced fund actually being at 'Growth' level when you look at the assets
- and I'm not reporting Superratings data. They assess assets weightings differently - without the banding that looks at true asset mix and they mix up Index and funds with a more traditional asset mix with illiquids in it. And if you dive deeper - there's some hefty sponsorships at play in the background. Every ratings company has their own business to run. I trust the Chant West data to provide accurate look through by asset mix that I can analyse myself and properly understand. So let's not confuse people with old or mixed data sources.
Regarding AusSuper, their Balanced option is the one that actually sits in the Growth category by Chant West's classification, despite the name "Balanced" suggesting otherwise, which is exactly the naming trap I keep warning people about. That option returned 9.7 per cent for FY26, just under the cutoff for this year's top 10 list, so it was close but didn't quite make the cut this time.
Apples for apples - they did not make the top ten GROWTH fund based on a fair comparison of the funds with 61-80% growth assets. The fund you would compare into this growth mix is the Australian Supr Balanced Fund.
AI may not understand the differences in weightings of assets - and frankly - the data was only released for the first time onto the internet with my articles in any collective way - as this is new data for 2025/26 so AI will offer you limited value.
Sure, if you compare their HIGH GROWTH fund's returns with all these GROWTH funds, they might look great - but that wouldn't be fair or sensible. Ultimately, they are in the top ten for 10 years - so that's my real guide
The data you're quoting is old data BTW - from the year before. So that is confusing. And Superratings uses different criteria - I can't say I understand how they rate as it isn't explained.
Fun experiment - ask the AI to mine the public reporting for how much each of those funds pays each rating company.
Australian Super (High) Growth also had a good year with 11.573% return but they are not in Chant West’s list. Casts doubt about how good their research is.
Hey Ian
AustralianSuper's High Growth option isn't included because it sits in a different category altogether, "High Growth" funds hold 81 to 95 per cent in growth assets, while the rankings in my article were for the "Growth" category, funds sitting at 61 to 80 per cent. So AusSuper's High Growth option was never eligible to be compared against these particular funds, it's genuinely a different peer group with a different risk level.
Their Balanced option is the one that actually sits in the Growth category by Chant West's classification, despite the name "Balanced" suggesting otherwise, which is exactly the naming trap I keep warning people about. That option returned 9.7 per cent for FY26, just under the cutoff for this year's top 10 list, so it was close but didn't quite make the cut this time.
So to directly answer your question, it's not that AustralianSuper underperformed, it's that you’re comparing their High Growth option to the wrong list, and their actual Growth category option had a solid year, just not quite top 10 this time round.
Hope that clears it up. Thanks for your curiosity, it's exactly the kind of question that shows why checking the actual asset mix matters more than the name on the fund, the marketing or the claims funds make in their press releases and emails.
And always remember - I don’t make this data up or collect it myself or draw judgement - I report the data from one of Australia’s most trustworthy superannuation research companies, Chant West. And I’ll always tell you my source so you can dive deeper yourself and question claims - that's really healthy. Fund marketing might in fact tell you their fund is "growth" when it's in fact High Growth to try and get you to compare it with others in a different (lower) category so they look better on face value - or some 'research' companies might in fact be being paid to rate super companies by their 'branded level' (ie compare funds branded BALANCED which are in fact holding more growth assets than a balanced fund) rather than the actual weighting of assets they hold. The only way to compare apples with apples is to look at the weighting of growth assets in the portfolio and compare them by band.
Cheers
Bec
The top 10 performing Balanced superannuation options over the decade to December 2025, as ranked by SuperRatings, are dominated by member-owned industry funds:
Hostplus – Balanced: 8.70% p.a.
Australian Retirement Trust (ART) – Super Savings Balanced: 8.50% p.a.
Hostplus – Indexed Balanced: 8.30% p.a.
AustralianSuper – Balanced: 8.20% p.a.
UniSuper – Balanced: 8.10% p.a.
Vision Super – Balanced Growth: 8.10% p.a.
HESTA – Balanced Growth: 8.00% p.a.
Cbus – Growth (MySuper): 8.00% p.a.
Aware Super – Future Saver Balanced: 8.00% p.a.
Not sure why Australian Super is always ignored?
Hey Mark - that's last year and it's "Balanced" data yet Hostplus is known widely for its balanced fund actually being at 'Growth' level when you look at the assets
- and I'm not reporting Superratings data. They assess assets weightings differently - without the banding that looks at true asset mix and they mix up Index and funds with a more traditional asset mix with illiquids in it. And if you dive deeper - there's some hefty sponsorships at play in the background. Every ratings company has their own business to run. I trust the Chant West data to provide accurate look through by asset mix that I can analyse myself and properly understand. So let's not confuse people with old or mixed data sources.
Regarding AusSuper, their Balanced option is the one that actually sits in the Growth category by Chant West's classification, despite the name "Balanced" suggesting otherwise, which is exactly the naming trap I keep warning people about. That option returned 9.7 per cent for FY26, just under the cutoff for this year's top 10 list, so it was close but didn't quite make the cut this time.
Bec
What about retail funds?
Yes sponsorship sure can sway the data!
I searched three AI portals and Australian Super are ranked in top 5 so I don’t think I am confusing people just making it clear and open.
Apples for apples - they did not make the top ten GROWTH fund based on a fair comparison of the funds with 61-80% growth assets. The fund you would compare into this growth mix is the Australian Supr Balanced Fund.
AI may not understand the differences in weightings of assets - and frankly - the data was only released for the first time onto the internet with my articles in any collective way - as this is new data for 2025/26 so AI will offer you limited value.
Sure, if you compare their HIGH GROWTH fund's returns with all these GROWTH funds, they might look great - but that wouldn't be fair or sensible. Ultimately, they are in the top ten for 10 years - so that's my real guide
The data you're quoting is old data BTW - from the year before. So that is confusing. And Superratings uses different criteria - I can't say I understand how they rate as it isn't explained.
Fun experiment - ask the AI to mine the public reporting for how much each of those funds pays each rating company.