Multi-asset funds remain one of the most significant product categories in advisers’ toolkit, and a key part of their investment proposition. However, in the following summary, IFA Magazine’s Sue Whitbread takes a look at the data from IFA Magazine’s 2026 multi-asset fund reader survey, comparing and contrasting them with the results from last year’s survey and finds that how advisers are selecting, using and assessing these funds appears to be changing.
While the broad role of multi-asset funds remains firmly intact, IFA Magazine’s latest multi-asset fund reader survey findings indicate a subtle but important shift in adviser priorities: a move away from viewing these products as near-universal portfolio solutions and towards a more selective, more analytical and more demanding approach to fund choice.
That evolution reflects the growing maturity of the category itself. For many years, multi-asset funds have appealed to advisers because they package together the benefits from diversification, of outsourced asset allocation decisions and manager oversight within a single product.
For advisers, particularly those operating centralised investment propositions, such funds have offered a practical route to portfolio consistency, risk alignment and implementation efficiency, alongside MPS and more bespoke solutions. In many firms, multi-asset fund have become the foundation of portfolio construction, allowing advisers to outsource tactical allocation decisions while maintaining clear suitability frameworks.
Yet maturity changes the nature of competition. Once a category becomes well established, the broad structural advantages that drove adoption become less differentiating. Advisers no longer need to be convinced that multi-asset funds can serve a valuable role. Instead, they are increasingly focused on the finer details: how a fund performs in volatile conditions, whether it overlaps too heavily with other holdings, how clearly a provider can explain its process and whether the cost of active management is being justified by outcomes.
When viewed alongside last year’s data, the 2026 results from our reader survey paint a clear picture. Multi-asset funds remain widely used and well regarded by our readers, but the standards being applied to fund selection are rising.
A category that remains central — but is being used more selectively
The most immediate conclusion from comparing the results from our two surveys is that multi-asset funds remain deeply embedded in adviser portfolios. In 2025, nearly 90% of respondents said they recommended multi-asset funds to clients, highlighting the extent to which the category had become part of mainstream adviser practice. In 2026, that figure softened to just over 80%.
At first glance, that drop may look meaningful, but context is important. An adoption rate above 80% is very high indeed. Rather than suggesting advisers are moving away from the sector, the change may point more towards increased selectivity when it comes to the underlying funds. This interpretation becomes more persuasive when recommendation frequency is considered.
Last year, almost 60% of respondents said they recommended multi-asset funds “very often”. This year, that figure fell to 45%, while the proportion recommending them “often” or “occasionally” rose. That suggests multi-asset funds are becoming less of an automatic solution and more of a considered one.
For advisers, that likely reflects the wider expansion of fund choice across portfolios, and that’s in addition to the impressive range of MPS and bespoke solutions. Passive core funds, thematic exposures, specialist income mandates and alternative strategies have all become more prominent over recent years. In that environment, multi-asset funds are increasingly being evaluated not as complete solutions, but as one component within a wider mix. That shift naturally creates more competition for allocation and increases the scrutiny applied to each fund.
Diversification still drives demand — but downside protection is rising in importance
From what our respondents are telling us, it appears that diversification remains the single strongest reason advisers select multi-asset funds. Across both surveys, it was the most frequently cited rationale, reinforcing the idea that the ability to access multiple asset classes and regions within one product remains a compelling proposition.
However, while diversification remains the anchor, the latest survey suggests advisers are placing significantly more emphasis on risk management than they were a year ago. In the 2025 survey, risk management sat clearly behind diversification. In the 2026 results, it moved much closer, suggesting that, for our readers, the ability of a multi-asset fund to manage volatility and limit downside is becoming almost as important as broad exposure itself.
This reflects the practical realities advisers have faced over the last 18 months. The traditional diversification model was challenged heavily when equities and bonds sold off together during the inflation shock. That experience has clearly sharpened adviser focus on how funds behave when markets become difficult. It is no longer enough for a fund simply to hold a mix of asset classes. Advisers increasingly want confidence that managers can actively control risk, reduce drawdowns and reposition effectively when market conditions change.
This raises the importance of manager process. Two multi-asset funds may appear similar at a strategic level, but their approach to tactical asset allocation, cash positioning and downside control can vary significantly. The survey suggests advisers are becoming more aware of that distinction.
Active management gains ground as flexibility becomes more valuable
Perhaps the most striking shift in the survey data relates to the type of multi-asset funds advisers are using. In 2025, risk-rated funds dominated by a substantial margin, with over 80% of respondents saying these were the main type of multi-asset fund they recommended. This reflected the practical fit these funds have within suitability frameworks and centralised advice processes.
In 2026, however, active multi-asset funds moved into the lead with our respondents.
This is one of the most important developments in our survey because it points to a a changing adviser mindset. Active multi-asset funds offer flexibility that risk-rated structures can sometimes lack. Managers can move more dynamically between asset classes, alter regional weightings, manage duration and increase defensive positioning when conditions demand it. In a market environment where inflation expectations, interest rate policy and economic growth remain uncertain, that flexibility appears to be regaining appeal.
This does not mean risk-rated funds are losing relevance. They remain highly practical for suitability-led advice models. But the rise of active funds suggests advisers may be placing greater faith in manager discretion than they were previously.
Passive multi-asset funds also remain important, underlining the continued importance of fees. That creates a three-way competitive dynamic between active, passive and risk-rated approaches, with advisers weighing flexibility, simplicity and cost more carefully than before.
Portfolio roles are becoming more defined
The way advisers are allocating multi-asset funds within portfolios also reveals important changes in behaviour. Last year, the largest group of respondents said they allocated more than 80% of client portfolios to multi-asset funds, suggesting these products were often being used as near-complete portfolio solutions.
This year’s data shows a much broader spread across allocation bands.
That shift is important because it suggests advisers are becoming more deliberate about the role these funds play. Rather than acting as the dominant portfolio engine, multi-asset funds are increasingly being used alongside other specialist holdings, which means their role becomes more specific. In some cases, they may act as a stabilising core holding. In others, they may be selected for income generation, tactical diversification or volatility dampening.
That evolution matters because it changes the criteria by which funds are judged. A fund used as the portfolio core must deliver consistency and strategic balance. A fund used as a complementary holding may instead be judged on how it interacts with other funds.
Performance scrutiny is becoming more sophisticated
Performance remains at the heart of adviser multi-asset fund selection, and in both surveys performance versus benchmark remained the most important way advisers assessed multi-asset funds.
But the latest results suggest performance analysis is becoming more layered. Consistency of returns, peer-group comparisons and value for money all ranked highly in the 2026 survey, suggesting advisers are moving beyond simple headline performance when evaluating funds.
That is particularly important in the multi-asset space, where performance can often be heavily shaped by tactical asset allocation decisions. A strong one-year return may say less about manager skill than how the fund was positioned in a particular market environment. Advisers increasingly appear to recognise that.
Instead, they are focusing on repeatability. Can a fund deliver over multiple market cycles? Can it control downside as effectively as it captures upside? Can it do so efficiently enough to justify its fees?
This is where active managers face perhaps their biggest challenge. The more advisers scrutinise consistency and cost, the harder it becomes to rely on broad category narratives. The process itself must stand up to closer examination.
Portfolio overlap has become the biggest practical concern
If there is one issue that stands out most sharply year-on-year, it is the growing concern around overlap. In both surveys, overlap with other holdings was the most commonly cited challenge, but in 2026 that concern increased even further.
This trend says a great deal about how adviser portfolios are changing. As multi-asset funds are increasingly used alongside passive global equity funds, income strategies and specialist mandates, understanding what sits beneath the surface becomes more important.
The issue is straightforward: if a multi-asset fund contains large positions in the same companies or bonds as other holdings, advisers risk creating unintended concentrations while paying multiple layers of fees.
That has implications for diversification, cost and suitability.
For providers, this makes transparency a critical differentiator. Advisers increasingly need look-through clarity and better visibility on underlying holdings. Those who can offer that most effectively may be better positioned to address one of the market’s most persistent concerns.
Differentiation is becoming harder in a crowded market
Another major theme emerging from the latest survey is the growing difficulty advisers face in distinguishing between multi-asset funds. As the market has matured, many providers now compete with strategies that appear similar at a headline level, with comparable asset allocations, similar volatility targets and overlapping holdings.
That creates a problem.
If advisers struggle to identify meaningful differences between products, fund selection can become increasingly price driven. For active managers, that is a challenging dynamic.
This is why differentiation matters more than ever. Providers need to articulate clearly where their edge lies, whether that is tactical agility, risk controls, income generation, ESG integration or manager expertise.
The survey suggests advisers are no longer satisfied with broad marketing claims. They want evidence of process and clarity of proposition.
Which providers do respondents use or trust the most?
For 2026, our readers told us that top of the multi-asset fund pops for them were Vanguard and Royal London Asset Management, coming in with support from 42% of respondents. Other multi-asset fund providers which favoured well and made it into our readers’ top 10 include Schroders, M&G, Blackrock, L&G, BNY Investments, HSBC AM, most of which we’ve aimed to garner their thinking in order to share those thoughts with you in this publication.
A mature category facing a higher bar
The overall message from the 2025 and 2026 surveys is not one of declining demand for multi-asset funds. Far from it. The category remains highly relevant, widely used and firmly embedded in adviser portfolios.
What has changed is the standard by which funds are being judged.
Advisers remain convinced of the structural benefits of multi-asset funds, but they are becoming more selective about where they use them, more demanding about how they assess them and more focused on whether providers can demonstrate genuine differentiation. Risk management has become more important, active flexibility has gained ground, and concerns around overlap and value for money are becoming harder to ignore.
For fund groups, that changes the competitive challenge. The task is no longer to explain why multi-asset funds matter. Advisers already understand that. The challenge now is proving why a particular multi-asset fund offers a stronger, clearer and more justifiable solution than the alternatives.
That is a more difficult conversation but for providers that can answer it well, it may also be where the greatest opportunity lies.
This feature was first published in the 2026 edition of Multi-Asset Fund Insights. Click here to read the full report.
About the survey
IFA Magazine’s 2026 multi-asset fund reader survey ran online from 14th May until 15th of June 2026 and had 49 responses.