How the development of ETF costs affects the return on your Altersvorsorgedepot
You have just worked out what the government subsidy in the Altersvorsorgedepot (Germany’s new state-subsidized retirement investment account) is worth to you – €540 basic allowance, perhaps a child allowance on top. Then you come across a second figure that determines your return just as much but arrives far less conspicuously: ongoing ETF costs. One percentage point sounds like very little. Over 30 years it is one of the biggest levers you hold in your own hands. We show you how ETF costs in the Altersvorsorgedepot are developing, why they tend to fall – and what that means concretely for your final balance.
The key points at a glance
-
Depending on the provider and the variant, the reduction in yield in the Altersvorsorgedepot lies between 0.3% and 1.8% per year – by law the default standard product may not exceed 1.0% per year.
-
1% higher reduction in yield lowers your final balance after 30 years by roughly 20 to 30% – because of compounding, a difference in costs has a disproportionate effect.
-
With a €200 monthly contribution over 30 years, the gap between the cheapest and the most expensive cost variant is around €40,000 in final balance.
-
Competitive pressure and the statutory cost cap mean that ETF costs in the Altersvorsorgedepot tend to fall rather than rise.
-
The choice of costs when you open an account is therefore almost as decisive as the subsidy itself – and unlike the level of the subsidy, you can actively influence it.
In short: The development of ETF costs in the Altersvorsorgedepot describes how the reduction in yield on ongoing ETF savings plans changes through competition among providers and the statutory cost cap of currently up to 1.0 percent. Just one percentage point less in costs can mean several tens of thousands of euros more in final balance over 30 years.
What role do ETF costs play for the return on the Altersvorsorgedepot?
With the Altersvorsorgedepot, attention falls first on the subsidy – rightly so, because up to €1,680 per year straight from the state is a powerful lever on returns. The ongoing costs of the ETFs in the Altersvorsorgedepot work quietly in the background by comparison – but across the entire accumulation phase they matter at least as much.
In the market, the reduction in yield in the Altersvorsorgedepot currently falls within the following ranges:
-
0.3% to 0.7% per year for a pure ETF default standard product via a bank or neobroker.
-
0.7% to 1.0% per year for a default standard product with actively managed fund components.
-
1.0% to 1.8% per year for a premium product with personal advice.
For comparison: old Riester contracts frequently ran at 1.5% to 2.5% in costs per year. The default standard product in the Altersvorsorgedepot is also subject to a statutory limit of at most 1.0% reduction in yield per year – a clear difference from the Riester world, where such caps rarely bit so consistently.
What difference one percentage point of costs makes to your final balance
The effect is not linear; it intensifies over time. The reason is compounding: costs reduce not only the capital paid in but also every bit of return that this capital could have earned in the years that followed. Hence the rule of thumb: 1% higher reduction in yield cuts the final balance after 30 years by roughly 20 to 30% – not by 1%.
Our own model calculation illustrates this with an example of a €200 monthly contribution over 30 years and a 6% gross return before costs:
|
Reduction in yield |
Net return |
Final balance after 30 years |
|---|---|---|
|
0.5% |
5.5% |
approx. €175,000 |
|
1.0% |
5.0% |
approx. €160,000 |
|
1.5% |
4.5% |
approx. €146,000 |
|
2.0% |
4.0% |
approx. €134,000 |
With an identical contribution, the cheapest and the most expensive variant are around €40,000 apart in final balance – without anything changing in the amount paid in.
In short
-
Differences in costs have a disproportionate, not a linear, effect over 30 years.
-
At €200 a month and a 6% gross return, there is around €40,000 in final balance between 0.5% and 2.0% in costs.
-
A low cost rate is therefore an active lever you can pull yourself – unlike the market return.
A second example with a different contribution shows the same effect even more clearly: at €150 a month over 30 years, an account with 0.4% in costs reaches a final balance of around €178,000. At 1.7% in costs, the same contribution yields only around €132,000.
The difference of €46,000 arises purely from the cost structure, not from the investment strategy. The cost question is therefore not a side issue but one of the few adjustments you really do control with the Altersvorsorgedepot.
Why ETF costs in the Altersvorsorgedepot are more likely to fall than rise
Two forces work in the same direction here. First, the statutory cost cap of at most 1.0% for the default standard product – it sets a clear upper limit that Riester contracts never had with this consistency. Second, competition among providers, which is likely to intensify with the market launch in 2027 as more banks, neobrokers, and fund companies offer their own Altersvorsorgedepots.
How strongly this competitive pressure actually works, however, also depends on how many providers become active in the market. Fabian Behnke, Head of Strategic Accounts at Vanguard, sums it up in the expert interview with Vanguard as follows: “Every cent that goes into fees can end up missing from your pension.” He regards the statutory cost cap as sensible, but points out at the same time that it does not cover additional services such as financial education, digital infrastructure, or personal advice – one reason why the cost range between a pure ETF default standard product and a premium offering with advice remains so wide. In his view, what matters is that enough providers are able to develop attractive solutions so that competition and the capacity to innovate are preserved.
In short
-
The statutory cost cap of 1.0% limits costs on the default standard product at the top end.
-
Growing competition among providers from the 2027 market launch should exert additional pressure on costs.
-
Without enough providers in the market, industry voices say this effect remains limited.
You will be the first to see which providers actually launch and on what terms if you join the waiting list.
What cost developments mean for your subsidy
Low costs do not work in isolation; they amplify the effect of the government subsidy. Every euro that does not go into fees stays invested and benefits from compounding, just like your allowance and your own contribution. Anyone choosing a low-cost ETF default standard product instead of an expensive premium offering therefore indirectly increases the value of their own subsidy – without paying in a single cent more.
Conclusion: costs are the lever you hold yourself
The subsidy determines how much extra money flows into your Altersvorsorgedepot. ETF costs determine how much of it actually reaches you in the end. While falling costs in the market are good news for everyone, you have to look closely yourself when choosing a provider – nobody takes that decision off your hands.
Join the waiting list and be the first to know when the first providers go live with their terms.
This article is for information purposes and does not constitute investment advice.
How high are ETF costs in the Altersvorsorgedepot at present?
Depending on the provider and the variant, the reduction in yield lies between 0.3% and 1.8% per year. The statutory default standard product is subject to an upper limit of at most 1.0% reduction in yield per year.
Why do ETF costs in the Altersvorsorgedepot tend to fall?
The statutory cost cap limits costs on the default standard product at the top end, and growing competition among providers adds further pressure on prices. Whether this effect materializes in full depends on how many providers actually develop attractive offerings.
How strongly does one percentage point of ETF costs affect returns?
One percentage point more in reduction in yield cuts the final balance after 30 years by roughly 20 to 30%, not just by 1%. The reason is compounding: costs reduce not only the capital paid in but also its future earnings.
Does the 1.0% cost cap apply to all variants of the Altersvorsorgedepot?
No, the statutory cost cap binds the standard securities account only. With freely chosen Altersvorsorgedepots or unit-linked pension insurance, providers may charge higher costs.
Can I influence the ETF costs of my Altersvorsorgedepot myself?
Yes. The choice of provider and product variant directly determines the reduction in yield. A low-cost ETF default standard product instead of a premium offering with advice can make a difference of several tens of thousands of euros in final balance over 30 years.
Jurist & Finanzmarktexperte · AVD Anbieter Vergleich
Rolf Henning Hackel ist Diplom-Jurist und seit über 22 Jahren als Vorstand und Geschäftsführer für unterschiedliche Softwaredienstleister der Finanzbranche sowie als Unternehmensgründer tätig. Als absoluter Marktexperte kennt er nicht nur die verschiedenen Anbieter, sondern auch die Produkte der Finanzindustrie mit ihren Stärken und Schwächen sowie deren regulatorischen Rahmen. Beim AVD Anbieter Vergleich schreibt er über das neue Altersvorsorgedepot und erklärt Förderung, Anbieter und Renditechancen in verständlichen Worten – unabhängig und werbefrei.
