Which Fund Managers Had The Most Top Rated Funds

• Our latest fund manager league table reviewed 85 fund management brands responsible for 3,095 Investment Association sector-classified funds.

• The rankings are based on the proportion of each fund manager’s funds that achieved a top performing 4 or 5 star Yodelar Rating.

• MAN Group ranked first, with 58.3% of its reviewed funds achieving a 4 or 5 star Yodelar Rating.

• Artemis ranked second, with 56.5% of its reviewed funds rated 4 or 5 stars.

• Even the highest-ranked fund managers had funds outside the top Yodelar Rating bands, showing why investors should assess the specific funds they hold rather than rely on fund manager reputation alone.

Many investors feel more confident holding funds from a well-known fund management brand. That is understandable. A familiar name can suggest experience, scale and trust.

But a fund manager name does not tell investors whether the specific fund they hold has performed well.

Our latest fund manager league table reviewed 85 fund management brands responsible for 3,095 Investment Association sector-classified funds. The ranking is based on the proportion of each manager’s funds that achieved a 4 or 5 star Yodelar Rating.

The results show a clear performance gap between fund groups. Some managers had a much higher proportion of top-rated funds. Others had very few, or none.

However, even the highest-ranked fund managers had funds outside the top Yodelar Rating bands, and many fund groups had a meaningful proportion of funds that ranked poorly against sector peers.

That is the key point for investors. A strong fund manager can still run weaker funds. A lower-ranked fund manager can still have individual funds that may serve a specific role. The fund itself must be assessed, not just the name above it.

Fund Manager Performance Summary

Across the 85 fund management brands reviewed, 679 funds received a top performing 4 or 5 star Yodelar Rating. In contrast, 1,752 funds received a poor 1 or 2 star rating by ranking among the bottom of their sectors for performance over the periods analysed.

How Yodelar Rates Fund Performance

Yodelar Ratings are based on historic fund performance compared with funds in the same Investment Association sector.

A 5 star rating is applied to funds that have consistently outperformed at least 75% of competing same-sector funds over 1, 3 and 5 years, while a 1 star rating is reserved for funds that have consistently ranked worse than at least three quarters of competing same-sector funds and have also underperformed their benchmark and sector average.

How Yodelar Rates Fund Performance

The ratings are not a recommendation, do not assess personal suitability and should not be treated as a guide to future returns.

The Highest Ranked Fund Managers

The table below shows the 10 highest-ranked fund managers by the proportion of funds that achieved a 4 or 5 star Yodelar Rating.

MAN Group ranked first, with 58.3% of its reviewed funds achieving a 4 or 5 star Yodelar Rating. Artemis ranked second, with 56.5% of funds in the top rating bands, while True Potential Investments ranked third at 53.8%.

These results show which fund groups had the strongest rating profile across the funds reviewed. However, even among the top-ranked managers, not every fund was highly rated. MAN Group still had three funds rated 1 or 2 stars. Artemis had four. True Potential Investments had seven.

That matters because investors do not buy a fund manager’s average performance. They buy individual funds. Even when a fund group ranks highly, the specific fund held still needs to be reviewed against its sector peers.

No Fund Manager Gets Everything Right

The most useful message from the league table is not simply which fund manager ranked first.

It is that fund management brands can have stronger and weaker funds at the same time.

This is important because many investors build confidence around a provider name. They may hold funds from a manager they trust, or from a platform’s preferred list, and assume that the fund has already been properly tested.

That can be a mistake.

A fund group can have funds that rank strongly and funds that rank poorly at the same time. This is why fund selection should be evidence-led. Investors should ask how each fund has performed over 1, 3 and 5 years, where data is available, and how it ranked against competing funds in the same IA sector.

The league table supports a wider point. Investors can benefit from comparing funds across a broad fund universe rather than relying only on one provider, one platform list or one in-house fund range. However, wider choice is only useful when it is supported by proper research. Fund selection should still be based on performance against sector peers, risk, charges, objectives and the role each fund plays in the portfolio.

That does not mean investors should constantly switch funds. It means the portfolio should not be limited by brand loyalty. If a fund has ranked poorly against sector peers and there are stronger-rated funds in the same sector, investors should understand whether the holding still has a clear reason to remain in the portfolio.

The Lowest Ranked Fund Managers

The lower end of the league table shows why investors should not rely on fund manager name alone.

Several fund management brands in the lower part of the table had no reviewed funds with a 4 or 5 star Yodelar rating. That does not mean every fund from these managers is unsuitable. A fund may have a role because of risk control, income needs, tax position, specialist exposure or wider portfolio structure.

But it does mean investors should ask harder questions.

If a fund is rated 1 or 2 stars, the reason for holding it should be clear. If a portfolio contains several funds from lower-ranked fund managers, or several funds with poor sector rankings, investors should review whether those holdings are still supporting the portfolio.

The risk is not only poor performance. The risk is assuming a fund is acceptable because the manager is familiar, when the data shows it has ranked poorly against sector peers.

Why Limited Fund Choice Can Be A Problem

A limited fund choice can make portfolio construction easier, but it can also restrict the investor’s options.

If an investor only uses funds from one provider, one platform list or one preferred fund range, they may miss stronger funds available elsewhere in the same sector. This matters because the league table shows that even the highest-ranked fund managers had funds outside the top Yodelar Rating bands.

A wider fund universe can help investors compare funds across different providers. It can also provide more flexibility to review weaker funds where appropriate, rather than staying within one fund management brand.

This is not about always choosing the highest-rated fund. Suitability still matters. A fund must fit the investor’s objectives, time horizon, attitude to risk and wider portfolio.

But the principle is clear. Fund selection should start with the investor’s needs and the evidence available across the market, not with the limitations of a single fund provider.

What Investors Should Check

Investors should not use the fund manager league table as a buying list. It is a research tool that highlights which fund groups had stronger and weaker rating profiles across the funds reviewed.

The more useful step is to review the funds actually held.

This type of review helps investors move away from brand assumptions and towards evidence.

A portfolio may hold funds from strong-ranked managers and still contain weak funds. It may also hold funds from lower-ranked managers that still have a valid role. The point is to test each holding properly.

Start With A Free Portfolio Analysis

Many investors hold funds from well-known fund managers without knowing how those funds rank against sector peers.

Our free portfolio analysis reviews each fund individually, showing 1, 3 and 5-year performance, sector ranking and Yodelar Rating, where data is available. Yodelar Ratings are based on historic sector-relative performance and are not a guide to future returns.

The analysis can also help identify weaker-rated holdings, duplication, concentration, higher charges and funds that may no longer have a clear role.

Speak To An Adviser

For investors who want to understand whether their current portfolio remains suitable, a no obligation call with an adviser from our advice partner, MKC Wealth, can help.

The discussion can cover current holdings, portfolio analysis results, long-term objectives, time horizon and attitude to risk. It can also explain how access to a broad fund universe and an unrestricted approach to fund selection may help build a more suitable portfolio.

Any personal recommendation would only be made after understanding the investor’s financial position, investment objectives, time horizon and attitude to risk. Any recommendation would include a clear explanation of risks, costs and ongoing service.

Summary

The latest fund manager league table shows why fund choice still matters.

MAN Group, Artemis and True Potential Investments ranked highest based on the proportion of their reviewed funds that achieved a 4 or 5 star Yodelar Rating. However, even the highest-ranked managers had funds that were rated 1 or 2 stars.

That is the central message for investors. A fund manager name can provide confidence, but it does not remove the need to review each fund individually.

Many fund groups had funds that ranked poorly against sector peers. For investors, this shows the value of broad fund access, proper fund research and regular portfolio review.

The conclusion is not that investors should choose or avoid a fund manager based only on this table. It is that every fund should be judged on its own evidence.

Before relying on a fund manager’s reputation, investors should check how the funds they actually hold have performed against competing funds in the same IA sector.

Source and Methodology

Source: Yodelar analysis of 85 fund management brands responsible for 3,095 Investment Association sector-classified funds, using the August 2026 fund manager league table.

The league table ranks fund managers by the proportion of their reviewed funds that achieved a 4 or 5 star Yodelar Rating.

Yodelar Ratings are based on historic fund performance relative to funds in the same Investment Association sector. They are not a recommendation, do not assess personal suitability and should not be treated as a guide to future returns. Figures are rounded. Past performance is not a reliable guide to future returns.