SMSF vs industry fund: which is right for your super?

Short answer: for most Australians, a well-run industry or retail fund is the right home for their super. A self-managed super fund (SMSF) suits a minority who want direct control over investments, have the balance to justify the fixed costs — generally around $200,000 or more — and the time and confidence to take on the legal responsibilities of being a trustee. There’s also a middle option most comparisons skip: an investment platform (or “wrap”), which gives you much of the choice and control people want from an SMSF without running your own fund. The right answer depends on your balance, how hands-on you want to be, and what you’re actually trying to achieve.

Meet Manny Tran, Director & Senior Financial Adviser at Plan My Wealth →

Sources: ASIC Moneysmart (SMSF suitability and trustee duties); University of Adelaide research via the SMSF Association (the ~$200,000 threshold); ATO SMSF statistics (SMSFs as a minority of Australian super). Figures current as at July 2026.

What’s the difference between an SMSF and an industry fund?

An industry fund (or industry super fund) — along with its close cousins the retail fund and other APRA-regulated funds, often lumped together as the “traditional” super funds — is a large, professionally run fund. You’re one of hundreds of thousands of members, a professional trustee runs everything, and you pick from a menu of investment options (including the default MySuper option). It’s low-effort by design.

A self-managed super fund — a self-managed superannuation fund, or SMSF — is a private fund you run yourself. It’s regulated by the ATO rather than APRA, can have up to six members, and every member is usually a trustee: legally responsible for the fund’s decisions, its investment strategy, its record-keeping and its annual audit. In exchange for that work, you get near-total control over where the money goes, including assets an industry fund won’t offer, such as direct property.

SMSFs are far from niche — but they’re still a minority choice. As at 30 June 2025 there were more than 650,000 SMSFs holding over $1 trillion, roughly a quarter of all super in Australia, according to the ATO’s latest statistics. The other three-quarters of the system sits in APRA-regulated funds — which tells you something about who this actually suits.

The gap between “pick from a menu” and “run the whole kitchen” is wide — and it’s exactly where most comparisons stop. They frame it as a straight choice, when there’s a genuine middle option that solves the problem for a lot of people.

Sources: ATO — SMSF statistical overview (as at 30 June 2025); ASIC Moneysmart — types of super funds.

Industry fund, platform or SMSF: how the three tiers compare

Comparing an SMSF vs an industry fund, a retail fund or an investment platform isn’t really an “A or B” choice — it’s a ladder. Each rung gives you more control and choice, and asks for more cost, time and responsibility in return. The middle rung, an investment platform (also called a wrap), lets you choose from a very broad menu of managed funds, ETFs and shares and see everything in one place — without you becoming a trustee or running an audit.

Seeing all three side by side usually reframes the question. Many people who think they need an SMSF actually want what the middle rung offers: more choice and visibility, without signing up to run a fund. If that’s you, a platform can be the calm answer. If you specifically want to hold something a platform can’t — most commonly direct property — that’s when the top rung starts to earn its keep.

Sources: ASIC Moneysmart — self-managed super fund; regulator roles per the ATO and APRA.

How much super do you need to make an SMSF worth it?

This is the heart of the “is an SMSF worth it?” question. As a general guide, an SMSF starts to make financial sense from around $200,000. Below that, the fund’s largely fixed running costs take a bigger bite out of your returns than a percentage-based fee at an industry fund would.

This threshold has been contested. For years, ASIC’s guidance implied you needed around $500,000, but that figure was withdrawn in 2022 after industry pushback. It followed research from the University of Adelaide, which analysed data from more than 318,000 funds and found that once an SMSF passes roughly $200,000, its returns after fees are broadly competitive with much larger APRA-regulated funds. Actuarial research by Rice Warner reached a similar conclusion on cost. ASIC’s current Moneysmart position is more measured: balance is one important factor among many, not a hard line.

The market has largely voted with its feet: as at 30 June 2024, 87% of SMSFs held more than $200,000, and the share of very small funds keeps shrinking — a sign the “too small to bother” end of the range is thinning out.

The nuance most articles miss: the $200,000 figure assumes a simple fund holding things like shares, ETFs and cash. Add direct property or borrowing and the compliance work — and cost — climbs, which pushes the sensible break-even higher. A property-focused SMSF generally needs a good deal more than $200,000 to stack up. And clearing that threshold isn’t the same as knowing how much you actually need to retire on your terms — worth keeping the two questions separate.

Sources: University of Adelaide research (via the SMSF Association); ASIC Moneysmart; ATO SMSF statistics.

What does it actually cost to run an SMSF?

Unlike an industry fund, where fees rise and fall with your balance, most SMSF costs and fees are fixed dollar amounts — which is precisely why balance is the deciding variable. The same audit and accounting bill lands whether your fund holds $150,000 or $1.5 million.

Based on ATO data for 2023–24, a straightforward SMSF typically runs somewhere in the range of $4,500 to $7,000 a year once you include professional help. The ATO’s median operating expenses sit lower still — around $4,400 — because many simple funds keep costs down; the average is dragged up by complex funds holding property or borrowings. The building blocks include:

Add direct property, borrowing through a limited recourse borrowing arrangement, or overseas assets, and costs rise noticeably because of the extra compliance involved. The point isn’t that SMSFs are expensive — it’s that the cost is fixed, so it only makes sense once your balance is large enough to spread it thinly.

Source: ATO — SMSF annual statistics (2023–24).

Who is an SMSF actually right for?

In practice, SMSFs tend to suit a few recognisable situations rather than the general public.

The direct-property or business-premises owner. The single most common reason people move to an SMSF is to hold an asset a mainstream fund won’t — usually direct residential or commercial property, sometimes a small business’s own premises. It’s a real slice of the sector: SMSFs collectively hold well over $150 billion in property. If that’s the specific goal, an SMSF is often the only structure that allows it — though the rules are strict.

The genuinely hands-on investor. People who actively follow markets, want to choose individual shares or specific assets, and are comfortable owning the outcome can find an SMSF rewarding. The key word is active: an SMSF isn’t a good place to learn to invest.

Couples or families pooling super. Because a fund can have up to six members, spouses (and sometimes adult children or business partners) can combine balances. Pooling can help clear the cost-effectiveness threshold sooner and open up larger assets — though it also ties two people’s retirement savings together, which needs thought.

Sources: ATO SMSF statistics; ASIC Moneysmart — SMSFs and property.

Who is an SMSF usually not right for?

Being honest about this matters more than the sales pitch. An SMSF is usually the wrong move if:

There’s no prize for taking on a second job in retirement you didn’t need.

For a large share of people who ask about SMSFs, the calmer and cheaper answer is a good industry fund, or a platform if they want more say in the investments.

Source: ASIC Moneysmart — self-managed super fund (suitability and risks).

What if you want to buy Melbourne property through an SMSF?

Victoria is home to around a third of Australia’s self-managed super funds, so it’s a live question right across the state, Melbourne included — and the northern suburbs, where our practice is based. Nationally, the ability to hold direct property, which an industry or retail fund can’t offer, is one of the most commonly cited reasons people set up an SMSF in the first place. If buying Victorian property is your plan, there’s a state layer that sits on top of the federal super rules, and it’s easy to underestimate.

Buying property in Victoria triggers land transfer duty (stamp duty) at settlement, and holding an investment property brings an annual land tax bill once your total taxable landholdings pass the threshold — investment and commercial property don’t get the home exemption. Both are administered by the State Revenue Office Victoria, and both come straight out of your fund’s returns. Victoria’s land tax settings have also been changing, so it’s worth checking the current thresholds rather than assuming last year’s figures still apply.

On top of the state taxes sit the federal SMSF rules: the property must meet the sole purpose test (you can’t live in it, holiday in it, or rent it to family), and if you borrow to buy it through a limited recourse borrowing arrangement, the cost and compliance climb again. It’s doable, and for the right investor it works well — but “I want to buy a Melbourne investment property in my super” is a decision to model carefully, state duty and land tax included, not a reason to rush into a fund.

Sources: ATO — SMSF statistics (state distribution); State Revenue Office Victoria — land transfer duty and land tax; ASIC Moneysmart — SMSFs and property.

Can you have both an SMSF and an industry fund?

Yes. There’s no rule that says your super has to live in one place. You can run an SMSF and keep an industry or retail fund open at the same time, and for some people that combination is deliberately the best structure — not a mistake to tidy up.

Why would you? A common reason is insurance. Group life, TPD or income protection cover inside an industry fund is often cheaper and easier to keep than arranging equivalent cover through an SMSF — especially as you get older or if you have a health history. Keeping a small balance in the industry fund can keep that valuable cover in force while your SMSF does the investing.

Others split for investment reasons: the SMSF holds a specific asset like property, while the industry fund keeps a simple, low-cost diversified option running alongside. The trade-off is that you’re paying two sets of base costs, so the benefit needs to be worth it.

That’s a different question from consolidating: if you simply have several old accumulation accounts and want to combine them, that’s a separate exercise. See our guide on bringing multiple super accounts together the right way — and always confirm your insurance before closing anything.

Source: ASIC Moneysmart — consolidating super funds (insurance considerations).

What are the risks and responsibilities of running an SMSF?

This is the part that gets glossed over in the excitement of “control.” As an SMSF trustee, you carry real, personal obligations:

None of this makes an SMSF a bad idea — hundreds of thousands of Australians run them well. It just means the decision deserves the same care as taking on any other serious responsibility.

Source: ASIC Moneysmart — risks and responsibilities of an SMSF.

How does an SMSF work with the Age Pension and Centrelink?

Here’s a point the big comparison pages tend to skip: the structure of your super doesn’t change how Centrelink assesses it. Whether your money sits in an industry fund, a platform or an SMSF, the same assets and income tests apply — the very rules behind why some Age Pension payments quietly fell earlier this year. An SMSF doesn’t hide assets from the Age Pension, and it doesn’t create a special exemption.

What can differ is the practical side. Because you control an SMSF’s investments and pension payments directly, there can be more flexibility in how and when income is drawn — which, used carefully, can support a broader retirement and Centrelink strategy. But that’s about how you use the fund, not a built-in advantage of the structure itself. If Age Pension entitlement is part of your picture, the interaction is worth modelling properly before deciding on a structure.

Source: ASIC Moneysmart — super and the Age Pension.

What about SMSFs and the $3 million super tax (Division 296)?

If your total super is heading toward $3 million, the extra tax on very large balances (Division 296) is worth understanding — and it matters more for some SMSFs than for other funds. Division 296 is now law and applies from 1 July 2026, adding 15% to the earnings on the part of your total super balance above $3 million (with a further 10% on the part above $10 million). The catch for SMSFs is that they’re more likely to hold large, illiquid assets like direct property, which can make the bill harder to fund without selling something — though the tax can generally be paid from the fund itself.

Because the detail is involved and the thresholds are indexed over time, check your own position before acting. We break down the mechanics and who actually ends up paying it in a separate explainer.

Source: ATO — Division 296 tax on large super balances (as at July 2026).

What happens to an SMSF as you get older?

An SMSF is easy to start and easy to run in good health. The questions that catch people out come later, and they’re exactly the ones near-retirees should ask first. This isn’t a fringe concern: around 35% of SMSFs are already wholly in the retirement (pension) phase, and the median SMSF member is 62 — this is a sector moving through exactly these life stages right now.

Who runs it if your health changes? Trustee duties don’t pause for illness or cognitive decline. A plan for this — often an enduring power of attorney stepping in — needs to be in place before it’s needed.

What if one spouse dies? In a two-member fund, the survivor is suddenly running it alone, often at a difficult time. Structure and documentation decided early make this far less painful.

Winding up. At some point many SMSFs are wound up — because a simpler structure suits later retirement, or because assets need to be sold to pay benefits. Winding up takes work and planning; it’s not a switch you flick.

An SMSF you’ll happily run at 58 is a different proposition at 78.

Source: ATO SMSF statistics (retirement-phase and member-age data).

How to decide which is right for you

Weighing the pros and cons of an SMSF is easier when you work through it in order:

Source: Plan My Wealth analysis, drawing on the ASIC Moneysmart and ATO guidance cited above.

The bottom line

An SMSF gives you the most control over your super — and asks the most in return. For most people, a good industry or retail fund does the job with none of the workload, and a platform bridges the gap for those who want more choice without running a fund. An SMSF earns its place when you have a specific goal it uniquely serves (usually direct property), a balance from around $200,000 that spreads its fixed costs thinly, and the time and confidence to take on a trustee’s responsibilities. Near retirement, the extra questions — insurance, the Age Pension, the $3m super tax, and who runs the fund as you age — often matter as much as the investment choice itself. Get those right and the “which fund” question becomes a lot calmer.

Frequently asked questions