Index Funds vs. Mutual Funds: Which is Better?

Published: By Matthew Leung | 6 Min Read

When you start investing for retirement, you are immediately faced with a wall of financial jargon. Two of the most common terms you will hear are Mutual Funds and Index Funds. While they both allow you to pool your money with other investors to buy a diversified collection of stocks, their underlying strategies—and their fees—could not be more different.

Active vs. Passive Investing

The core difference comes down to human intervention.

Advertisement

The Fee Problem: Expense Ratios

Because mutual funds employ expensive managers and analysts, they charge high fees, known as an Expense Ratio. A typical mutual fund might charge 1.00% to 1.50% per year. An index fund, run by algorithms, might charge as little as 0.03%.

While 1% doesn't sound like much, it can devastate your portfolio over 30 years. You can see this impact firsthand by running your projected returns through our 401(k) Calculator and adjusting your expected return down by 1% to account for fees.

The Verdict: Which Should You Choose?

Decades of historical data show a clear winner. According to the S&P Indices Versus Active (SPIVA) scorecard, over a 15-year period, more than 90% of actively managed mutual funds fail to beat their benchmark index.

For the vast majority of retail investors, buying a low-cost, broad-market Index Fund provides better long-term Return on Investment (ROI) because you are capturing the growth of the entire market without surrendering your profits to high management fees.