SIPP Fees and Charges Comparison UK 2026

Investments, pension size, trading frequency and retirement plans determine the real SIPP cost more reliably than a headline percentage.

I applied the Best SIPP Providers fee rules at six pot sizes. The results below show the annual cost in pounds and where fixed subscriptions become cheaper than percentage fees.

What makes up the real cost of a SIPP?

A realistic comparison includes the platform or account fee, investment charges, dealing fees, foreign exchange, and retirement or transfer charges. Costly funds or frequent overseas trades can make an apparently cheap platform expensive.

A 0.60% fund charge adds £600 a year to a £100,000 portfolio before the SIPP fee. Both charges therefore belong in the provider comparison.

Why funds and shares can produce completely different answers

The cheapest provider can change when the asset type changes, because AJ Bell, Hargreaves Lansdown and Fidelity cap some exchange-traded custody charges while their fund charges continue on a percentage or tiered basis.

At £250,000, the fund-only model gives annual platform costs of £179.88 for Interactive Investor, £375 for Vanguard, £500 for Fidelity, £625 for AJ Bell and £875 for both Hargreaves Lansdown and Aviva. For an exchange-traded portfolio at the same balance, it gives £90 for Fidelity, £120 for AJ Bell and £150 for Hargreaves Lansdown. Dealing and investment costs remain additional, so these figures are not a complete investment cost.

How do shares and ETF platform costs compare?

Custody caps can reverse the fund result for exchange-traded portfolios. Fidelity reaches its £90 annual cap at £50,000 in this model, AJ Bell reaches £120 and Hargreaves Lansdown reaches £150. Aviva's percentage charge continues to rise, while Interactive Investor keeps the same subscription structure used for funds.

A full comparison adds standard dealing, regular-investment pricing, bid-offer spreads, foreign exchange and ETF charges to these figures. Vanguard accepts only Vanguard funds and ETFs, which limits the relevance of its figure for a wider portfolio.

Dealing, foreign exchange and retirement charges

I modelled 12 purchases over a year rather than assuming no trading. Twelve fund purchases at £1.50 add £18 at AJ Bell, while twelve standard share trades at £6.95 add £83.40 at Hargreaves Lansdown. Regular investment plans reduce these figures only when they match the actual investment pattern.

Foreign exchange can dominate the cost of overseas shares because the percentage applies to the value traded rather than the pension balance. Drawdown also deserves attention before retirement, since a low-cost accumulation account can become poor value if withdrawals are expensive or inflexible.

Which provider is strongest in each cost situation?

AJ Bell provides a useful broad-choice fund benchmark below £50,000. Interactive Investor Core costs less at £50,000 and £100,000 in this platform-only model, and its higher subscription remains competitive at larger balances. Dealing and service costs may still change the final choice.

Fidelity caps share and ETF custody at £90, AJ Bell at £120 and Hargreaves Lansdown at £150. Vanguard can cost less for a Vanguard-only portfolio, but it does not offer a comparable open investment range.

How did provider consideration change with current pot size?

SIPP Calculator modelling data shows a changing shortlist as current pension balances rise. Interactive Investor accounted for 30.5% of selections in the £250,000 to £499,999 group, compared with 1.2% below £25,000. Hargreaves Lansdown reached 33.1% above £500,000 but only 7.6% in the band immediately below.

These shifts show that provider consideration changes with pension size. They do not identify the reason for selection or a completed account opening.

How the fee comparison is calculated

The fee comparison classifies each intended holding as a fund, ETF, share, investment trust, bond or cash, then applies the platform rules to the actual balance, normal annual dealing and underlying investment charges.

Repeating the calculation at a larger future balance identifies fee crossovers. A provider that looks cheap today can become expensive as the pot grows, although this does not mean that a transfer will be necessary.