Index Funds vs. Active Funds: What the Long-Term Data Shows
Historical data has shown roughly 85-90% of actively managed U.S. equity funds underperforming their benchmark index over rolling 15-year periods.
Index funds simply hold all (or a representative sample) of the securities in a benchmark, such as the S&P 500, at very low cost. Actively managed funds attempt to beat that benchmark through security selection and timing, charging higher fees to fund the research and management required.
Over rolling 15-year periods, the majority of actively managed U.S. equity funds have historically underperformed their benchmark index, according to long-running industry scorecards that track fund performance against passive alternatives. The gap is driven largely by fee drag and the statistical difficulty of consistently picking winning securities over long periods.
A seemingly small fee difference compounds significantly: an actively managed fund charging 1% more per year than a comparable index fund can cost an investor more than $100,000 over a 30-year holding period on a typical retirement-sized portfolio, purely from the fee difference compounding against the account.
None of this guarantees any individual active fund will underperform — some do beat their benchmark over some periods — but the aggregate historical data is a major reason many long-term retirement and FIRE plans default to low-cost index funds as a core holding.
Frequently Asked Questions
Want to see your own numbers? Try the free Life-Hours Calculator.