Morningstar expects competitive pressures from Netwealth and HUB24 to intensify – not only from each other – but from the institutional platforms who are re-tooling with the playing field expected to level out.
Separate investor notes for both platforms from the past week after 3Q25 results were posted by the ASX noted moves by Netwealth to replicate features of HUB24, reinforcing the limited moat the technology providers have, and that future competition will come down on pricing over features.
Netwealth has stated its intention to reduce reliance on third-party systems for essential platform features which the researcher considers a positive step as the platform could better customise its products and roll-out new offerings faster via its own in-house systems, but this had previously been a competitive moat for HUB24.
The demise of vertical integration and the banks’ exit from advice saw the rise of independent platforms who benefitted from the post-Hayne royal commission popularity surge towards non-institutional product and service providers.
HUB24 and Netwealth were two of the key beneficiaries of this cataclysmic industry shift and have led the way for net flows the past few years, with the former revealing it is used by 5015 advisers – almost a third of the total 15,600 listed on the ASIC Financial Advisers Register.
“They were much more nimble in creating new product features, while the major institutional platforms were directed with trying to consolidate their products, getting rid of older, legacy platforms,” Ler says of the pair.
Following the royal commission, Insignia acquired the ANZ wealth management arm and NAB’s MLC adviser platform, with the latter now being used as the group’s primary business-to-consumer brand.
Commonwealth Bank sold a majority stake in Colonial First State to private equity firm KKR, while Westpac retained BT Panorama after a period of shopping it around to the industry.
Ler says the legacy players are beginning to close the gap as a collective group, although there are still differences between them.
He believes Macquarie has been a strong performer, while CFS has gained more usage from advisers, but Insignia and AMP still have ground to catch up on.
“If you were to put them together as a group now compared to the past five years, it is looking better because they’ve all resolved their legacy issues,” Ler says.
“They can better set their sights on earnings growth and client retention. Management is less distracted, and they still have that huge FUM [funds under management].”
Insignia still maintains the largest market share by funds under administration ($225 billion for a 18.9 per cent share), followed by CFS and Macquarie ($156 billion; 13.1 per cent), Westpac ($144 billion; 12.1 per cent), AMP ($135 billion; 11.3 per cent), then Netwealth ($101 billion; 8.5 per cent) and HUB24 ($99 billion; 8.3 per cent), according to data from Plan For Life from 31 December.
HUB24 leads for net fund flows for CY24 with $18 billion, followed by Netwealth ($14.6 billion), Macquarie ($2.8 billion) and Dash ($0.6 billion). AMP (-0.6 billion), CFS (-0.8 billion), Westpac (-2.2 billion) and Insignia (-5.1 billion) were in outflow.
Research released by The Conexus Institute* found HUB24 ($6.2 billion) replaced industry fund AustralianSuper ($5.1 billion) as the leading fund in terms of competitive flows, followed by Netwealth ($3.5 billion).
The investor notes detailed how HUB24 and Netwealth had steady inflows for 3Q25, which stayed within the researcher’s expectations despite market volatility.
Morningstar noted all platforms are facing headwinds from market volatility due to the tariffs being introduced by US President Donald Trump.
Platforms, which rely on AUM–based fees as a revenue stream, are beholden to these market swings.
“If the entire industry is experiencing heightened volatility, dampened investor risk appetite, then would still be exposed to those impacts,” Ler says.
“In the long those recurring…administration fees are higher revenues anyway because they are recurring and more predictable.”
*The Conexus Institute is a not-for-profit think-tank philanthropically funded by Conexus Financial, publisher of Professional Planner.
