HESTA Review: Fees, Returns and the Options Menu

🏆 Above its band median, and what that does not prove🔗

Most members never pick an investment option. They land in the default, which makes the default's numbers more important than any other line on the menu, because it is where most of the money sits.

Over five years to 2026-06-30, HESTA's default returned 7.21% a year after fees and costs. Its peer group, the 60%-75% growth band, had a median five-year return of 5.90%. That is 1.31 percentage points in HESTA's favour. The option holds 74.3% in growth assets, and it passed the performance test. Over three years the same option returned 9.58% a year, and over ten 8.29%.

💸 The fee curve, and who sits on it longest🔗

The pattern is not an accident. Part of what you pay is a fixed dollar charge, and a fixed charge spread across a bigger balance is a smaller slice of it. Same fund, same option, 1.23% on a $10,000 account and 0.73% on a $250,000 one. At $50,000, 0.29% of the 0.81% is administration.

That structure matters most at the start, and it matters more here than at most funds. A small balance is not just a small balance: it sits at the point on the curve paying the highest rate, and it can stay there for years. Many HESTA members work part time or take career breaks, which slows how quickly a balance builds. A balance that grows slowly stays at the expensive end of the curve longer than one that grows fast, which is why the top row of that table is the one worth understanding early.

🗂️ The options menu🔗

Read the fee column against the return column and something useful falls out. They do not move together.

Property and Infrastructure is the most expensive option on the menu at 1.21%, and it returned 5.90% over five years. High Growth is cheaper at 0.84% and returned 8.95%, the best on the menu. So the priciest line is not the best performer, and the best performer is not the priciest. That is not a HESTA quirk, it is how investing works. A higher fee buys access to a different set of assets. What it does not buy is a better result.

🧊 Cheap is not a like-for-like swap🔗

Indexed Balanced Growth is the cheapest option on the menu at 0.37%, against the default's 0.81%. On price alone that looks like an easy win. In dollars at a $50,000 balance it is $185 a year against $405.

It is not a straight swap, and the reason is hiding in the risk column. Indexed Balanced Growth holds 80.0% in growth assets. The default holds 74.3%. That is 5.75 percentage points more exposure to shares, property and other assets that move around a lot, which means a bumpier ride, especially in a rough year.

Over five years it returned 7.90% and the default returned 7.21%. The extra 0.69 percentage points is real, but part of it was paid for in volatility rather than saved in fees. A lower fee helps. It does not remove the extra risk you take on to chase the higher return. None of that makes one option better than the other. It makes them different products, and the difference is the whole point.

🌱 The option at the same risk level🔗

If you want a genuine like-for-like comparison, Sustainable Growth is the one. It charges 0.75% a year, slightly less than the default's 0.81%, and holds 75.0% in growth assets against 74.3%, so the risk levels are almost identical. Over five years it returned 4.46% against the default's 7.21%.

So on the two things you might expect to explain a return gap, cost and risk, it looks very close to the default. The 2.75 percentage point gap showed up anyway. Which specific assets it holds and the screens it applies are the likely reasons, and the published figures alone do not pin it down, so this page will not pretend they do.

The same caveat applies here as everywhere else: five years is one window. Choosing a sustainable option is often a values decision, and that is a legitimate reason to invest. You still deserve to see the published trade-off over that period in plain numbers rather than guess at it, which is what the table above is for.

👥 Accounts, not members🔗

APRA reports 978,570 member accounts. If you have two, you are counted twice: an old account and a new one, or a super account plus a transition to retirement account, both show up on that line. It is a size indicator, not a headcount.

It says nothing about how any individual's money is performing. The fee and return figures in this article turn on your balance and your chosen option, not on how many accounts exist across the fund. If you suspect you are one of the double counted, consolidating super covers the order of operations, insurance first. And our guide to the best performing funds explains why a league table of raw returns misleads, even when the number at the top is genuinely good.

❓ Frequently asked questions🔗