Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Barron’s Best Fund Families, 2025

edited February 27 in Fund Discussions
Barron’s Best Fund Families, 2025

2025: #1-American Funds/Capital Group, #2-Fidelity, #3-Vanguard,…,#6-BlackRock, #7-State Street,…,#15-Nuveen/TIAA,…,#18-Pimco, #19-DFA, #20-T Rowe Price,…,23-Franklin Templeton, #24-SIT,…,#30-JP Morgan,…,#35-PGIM, #36-Invesco,…,#46-Manning & Napier.

5-Yrs: #1-SIT, #2-Fidelity, #3-Pimco, #4-DFA, #5-American Funds/Capital Group,…,#9-BlackRock,…,#11-Nuveen/TIAA,…,#15-JP Morgan,…,#17-T Rowe Price, #18-Vanguard,…,#22-Franklin Templeton,…,#30-Invesco,…,#35-PGIM, #36-State Street, #42-Russell.

Also provided are rankings for 10-Yr and within the categories (general equity, world equity, mixed asset, taxable bond, tax-deferred bond).

Index funds were excluded, but active and semi-active (factor) ETFs were included.

Various weights were used for overall scores including asset-weights.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/best-fund-families-087f63f1
MSN ( @Observant1) https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/barron-s-best-fund-families/ar-AA1X6ugu

Comments

  • edited February 27
    Firms must have three actively managed OEFs or ETFs in Lipper's general U.S. stock category
    and at least one fund in both the world equity and mixed-asset categories to be included in Barron's rankings.
    They must also offer at least two taxable bond funds and one national tax-exempt bond fund.
    Just 46 asset managers out of 795 in Lipper's database met Barron's criteria in 2025.
    Dodge & Cox and Janus Henderson are two prominent firms which were excluded
    because they do not offer funds in all the requisite categories.

    The focus of this Barron's article was 2025 fund performance.
    A one year period is an awfully short time to judge actively managed OEFs and ETFs.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/barron-s-best-fund-families/ar-AA1X6ugu



    Note: Tables from the original Barron's article are unfortunately excluded on MSN.
  • edited February 28
    How much does it really matter, if one can be invested with a number 20 fund family, and still buy the funds of the number 1 firm? And most of the other firms?

    Asking because I am actually interested in pro/con opinions on that, not to argue.
    I guess one con is paying certain commission fees, no matter how slight they may be on a larger purchase. What else?

    I do agree that 1-yr results are not particularly consequential. Funds that had INTL, PM or value exposure in 2025 tended to do better than those that did not. Contrafund, cited in the article, has had awesome performance for several years.
  • edited February 28
    "How much does it really matter, if one can be invested with a number 20 fund family,
    and still buy the funds of the number 1 firm? And most of the other firms?"


    Are you referring to an investor who is a brokerage customer of a firm that also markets its own funds?
    There aren't many cons that come to mind in this scenario as long as the brokerage provides required
    features and services, offers access to a wide array of funds, and delivers decent customer service.
    Some brokerages (e.g., Vanguard, T. Rowe Price) provide additional benefits to customers who meet
    certain total investment thresholds in their company funds.
    For example, investors with $1 million to $5 million invested in Vanguard funds can make 25 trades
    in transaction-fee funds per calendar year for free.
  • @Observant1 Yes, precisely what I meant.

    Is there a case to switch from Vanguard or TRP to Fidelity on the basis of "fund family ranking". Or just buy the Fidelity fund one desires, via brokerage services? Other than select brokerage commissions, which are minimal.





  • edited February 28
    Media loves rankings - they are everywhere for everything.

    Barron's also publishes several annual rankings and the fund family rankings in the OP are among them.

    Being asset-weighted in categories evaluated, they reflect the asset tilts of the firms and aggregate fund family performances.

    True, 1-yr doesn't tell much, but 5-yr and 10-yr rankings are also provided.

    Movements within 1-yr rankings may be meaningful and are watched by industry. When new or small players show up in top categories, they are often grabbed by giants.

    Vanguard asset mix has changed significantly due to its expansion into ETFs that are mostly in equities. So, it has jumped around a lot in 1-yr rankings:
    2021 #43, 2022 #21, 2023 #14, 2024 #37, 2025 #3, but #3 in 2025 is certainly notable.
    If these rankings included consumer experiences, then Vanguard won't be that high. Incidentally, that's captured in separate annual broker rankings.

    Bond house Pimco won't rank high, but if you need bonds, you cannot ignore Pimco.

    These rankings cover only active and semi-active family funds, not other funds accessible through their brokerage arms.

    https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/252/barrons-best-fund-families
  • "Is there a case to switch from Vanguard or TRP to Fidelity on the basis of 'fund family ranking.'"

    I don't think there is a case to switch brokerages based solely on fund family rankings.
  • @yogibearbull @Observant1

    Thanks for the responses. The Pimco comment hits on point. And the Vanguard ranking changes too.
  • msf
    edited 10:58AM

    "Is there a case to switch from Vanguard or TRP to Fidelity on the basis of 'fund family ranking.'"

    I don't think there is a case to switch brokerages based solely on fund family rankings.

    I agree, but ...

    There is a third way - open an account at another brokerage without closing the old brokerage account. Though one may not want to do this because of added complexity. For taxable investments, it adds another institution that one must remember at tax time. For T-IRAs, it means computing RMDs for multiple accounts and then deciding which account(s) to draw from.

    Just because a family is rated highly doesn't mean that it has any funds you want. Conversely, you may want funds from a family that isn't top ranked. Yogi mentioned Pimco as an example. Open another account if that's the only way you can get a "must have" fund (e.g. PRWCX, seemingly open at Merrill). Otherwise there are usually alternatives.

    Fees are another issue. DrVenture mentioned this, though suggesting that for large purchases transaction fees don't make a big difference. I agree. Though you may be able to get TF waivers on some families. Schwab has been mentioned as a brokerage that may waive fees if you bring enough assets in.

    There's another aspect of fees - expense ratios. Getting back to Pimco - Fidelity doesn't sell the lowest expense Institutional class shares. It only sells I-2 shares or worse, I-3. For example, Schwab sells PIMIX (ER 0.54%), while Fidelity sells only PIPNX (ER 0.74%).

    Finally, different brokerages may offer different perks. Observant1 mentioned free MF trades at Vanguard with a high enough ($1M+) balance in VG funds. I've posted elsewhere about getting a significant boost in cashback rates on BofA credit cards with a high enough Merrill balance. Likewise TRP gives free premium M* membership and access to PRWCX with $250K balance. It also gives lower min ($50K) access to cheaper I-class shares with a $500K balance at TRP.

    But switch because of fund family ranking? No.
  • Thank you @msf, you are spot on.
  • @msf, I had thought the initial minimum investment for PIMIX at Vanguard was $25,000, but I now see that it’s actually $500.

    https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/pimix#performance-fees

    At Vanguard, a $500,000 investment in PRWCX can be converted to TRAIX.

  • What I wrote about TRP was somewhat ambiguous. I've since corrected. The standard min for I-class shares is $500K. But if you have a $500K total balance at TRP, the min drops to $50K.
  • Good info @msf

    TRP also converts to I-class shares automatically, once minimums are met. I need to move a 401K and pension cash balance this year, and would prefer to keep a single brokerage, not so much for me, as my wife and son's simplicity.

    But, if I were going to switch brokerages, now we be a good time.

    Over the past 3 years, I have had contact with a few Senior Investment Advisors at TRP. I found one that really knows her stuff, and I am building a relationship specifically with her now. As mentioned, I can always find an alternative fund, when one specific fund is not available.

    Checking Pimco funds at TRP, I find a $35 fee to buy PIMIX. No fees to purchase CEFs from Pimco.
Sign In or Register to comment.