What account fees apply to the Altersvorsorgedepot?

Tilman Freyenhagen

Published on 15 June 2026 · Updated on 15 July 2026 · Managing Director & Partner, Alsterspree Verlag GmbH

Introduction to the Altersvorsorgedepot fee structure

The Altersvorsorgedepot can carry three provider-side fees: an account administration fee, order fees on buying and selling, and savings-plan fees per execution^[1]. For regular savers, savings-plan costs matter most, because fee-free ETF savings plans bring total costs down considerably. On top of these provider costs come the product-side costs of the investment instruments, such as an ETF's total expense ratio (TER).

With the reform of private pension provision from 2027, the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) aims for cheaper, more transparent subsidised retirement saving. Unlike classic insurance products, the Altersvorsorgedepot does away with high upfront and administration costs, which directly strengthens the investment's expected return. To analyse the long-term cost burden precisely and compare it with unsubsidised savings plans, you can use the subsidy calculator, which gives you a transparent projection.

This structure means self-directed savers can keep fees very low by carefully choosing their broker and low-cost ETFs. Our knowledge section gives you detailed comparisons of the costs involved and shows you how to build your account optimally. Please note, for all cost comparisons: not investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG.

The account administration fee: fixed costs compared

The account administration fee forms the financial foundation of your choice of provider for the new Altersvorsorgedepot. This fixed fee is charged regardless of your trading activity, simply for holding and safeguarding the account. While the Federal Ministry of Finance is pushing for maximum transparency as part of the reform^[1], the market shows a clear split. Traditional branch and direct banks often still charge fixed annual or quarterly flat fees. Modern neobrokers, by contrast, mostly waive these fixed costs and offer account administration for zero euros. For well-founded comparisons, the knowledge section offers detailed analyses of current cost structures.

Fixed amount versus percentage-based account fee

Instead of a fixed euro amount, some providers charge a percentage fee based on the total account value. On a small account balance, a fee of, say, 0.1 percent a year may sound negligible. As your retirement savings grow, though, this charge rises continuously and can quickly overtake a traditional flat fee. If you're a self-directed saver determined to keep costs down, you should therefore favour providers who permanently avoid volume-based charges. That way, the bulk of your state allowances and your own contributions stays invested directly in your personal retirement provision.

For self-directed savers building wealth over the long term, even small annual fixed costs add up to substantial amounts over the decades. If, for example, you pay an annual account fee of 30 euros over 30 years, the compound-interest effect means you lose a noticeable share of your expected final capital. With the subsidy calculator you can simulate the exact effect of ancillary costs on your expected final capital. All calculations shown are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG.

Order fees and transaction costs when buying and selling

If you manage your Altersvorsorgedepot yourself and want to react flexibly to market movements, order fees play a central role. These transaction costs apply whenever you manually buy or sell securities such as ETFs, shares or fund units^[2]. Unlike automated savings plans, which many modern brokers offer free of charge or for very low flat fees, every manual order is billed individually. To make the most of the state subsidy on the Altersvorsorgedepot and secure your net return in the long run, self-directed savers should compare providers' fee models carefully in advance.

The difference between these models is especially clear with a lump-sum investment or a targeted portfolio rebalancing. While a percentage-based fee causes noticeable costs on a large investment of, say, 10,000 euros, a fixed flat fee stays consistently low. For active investors who want to fund their subsidised Altersvorsorgedepot flexibly, brokers with flat-fee models are therefore usually the most economical choice. You can find out transparently, with the subsidy calculator, how strongly different cost structures and the state allowances affect your final capital in the long run. A regular look at the knowledge section also helps you stay up to date on regulatory changes.

Savings-plan fees: the decisive lever for regular saving

Since the Altersvorsorgedepot is typically funded through monthly or quarterly instalments, savings-plan costs play an outsized role over the long run. Over a term of several decades, every execution fee adds up and noticeably erodes the compound-interest effect^[3]. While traditional Riester-Rente (Germany's existing subsidised private pension) contracts were often burdened by high upfront and administration costs, the new Altersvorsorgedepot offers the chance of a significantly higher net return through cost-efficient account models. If you invest a fixed amount every month, the structure of your provider's savings-plan fees is therefore the single most important cost factor on the provider side. A careful comparison of billing models is essential for self-directed savers who want to consistently avoid unnecessary return losses from the outset.

The modern broker landscape in Germany has shifted strongly toward fee-free savings plans. Many neobrokers offer so-called free savings plans, under which no provider-side purchase fees apply for the regular execution of certain exchange-traded index funds (ETFs). In this case, only the ETF provider's internal product costs (TER) remain, deducted directly from the fund's assets. For self-directed savers who want to structure their retirement provision digitally and independently, this fee-free savings-plan logic is the most effective lever for minimising costs. On our portal, we offer you well-founded guidance: use our knowledge section to understand the regulatory details, or calculate the long-term effects of different cost scenarios directly with the subsidy calculator. This overview is for informational purposes and does not constitute investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG.

The statutory cost cap: protection on the standard product

A strict statutory cost limit applies to the state-regulated standard Altersvorsorgedepot (the statutory default account) from launch in 2027. The German Bundestag has resolved to cap annual effective costs for this standard product at a maximum of 1.0 percent of the account value, to protect savers' state subsidy from excessive fees^[4]. This cap on effective costs covers both the provider's administration costs and the product costs of the funds held. It's meant to ensure that state allowances and tax benefits aren't eaten up by opaque fee structures, as was often criticised in the past with older subsidised products.

While the 1.0 percent cost cap serves an important protective function for newcomers, the free-form Altersvorsorgedepot at neobrokers or direct banks often offers self-directed savers far greater savings potential. Anyone who takes their investment strategy into their own hands and chooses low-cost ETFs can usually bring the actual cost ratio down to a fraction of the statutory maximum. Because even small percentage differences can add up to a difference of many thousands of euros over a decades-long accumulation phase, a careful comparison is worthwhile. To compare these different scenarios with mathematical precision for your personal situation, you can use the subsidy calculator, which transparently sets out the long-term effects of account fees and product costs. (Note: the cost scenarios mentioned are for illustration only and do not constitute investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG.)

Whichever path you choose, the law requires that all fees, on both the standard product and the free-form variants, be disclosed transparently. For the best possible start, it's always worth taking a systematic look at the knowledge section, where we lay out all regulatory developments and fee models neutrally and with sources. That way you keep full control over your retirement provision and make sure your return isn't diminished by unnecessary friction.

ETF product costs (TER): the indirect fees

Alongside the direct fees for account administration and order execution charged by the broker, the product-side costs of the funds play a decisive role in your long-term wealth building. These ongoing costs are summarised under the term total expense ratio (TER) and are deducted directly from the fund's assets each year. While actively managed retail funds often carry annual management fees of 1.5% to over 2.5%, and additionally weigh on returns with front-end loads of up to 5.0%, passive ETFs score with an unbeatably low-cost structure. For broadly diversified ETFs, the TER typically runs at just 0.1% to 0.3% a year^[4]. Because ETFs simply passively track an existing market index, the costs of active management and expensive research departments are eliminated entirely.

For self-directed savers managing their retirement provision independently through the new Altersvorsorgedepot, this cost saving is a powerful return lever. A seemingly small difference of 1.5% in annual costs can, over a typical accumulation phase of 30 or 40 years, translate into a difference of several tens of thousands of euros in your final pension capital. To apply this long-term cost effect precisely to your personal savings rate and term, you can use our interactive subsidy calculator. In addition, the knowledge section provides neutral comparisons of the fee structures charged by different providers and shows you how to reduce the product costs of your ETF selection to a minimum.

Important note: all cost structures and worked examples set out in this section are for general information and illustration only. They do not constitute investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG.

Switching costs: flexibility when changing provider and transferring your account

A key advantage of the new Altersvorsorgedepot is the high degree of flexibility it offers compared with traditional Riester-Rente contracts. If you find that another provider offers better terms or a more suitable ETF selection, you can transfer your savings without hassle. The legislator actively protects you here from excessive switching barriers, to enable genuine competition among brokers. That removes the worry of being tied long-term to an expensive product. For an initial overview of the different offers, you can use the provider comparison or the knowledge section.

The cost structure for such a switch is clearly regulated by law. If your Altersvorsorge contract has run for at least five years, the complete transfer to a new provider is absolutely free for you^[2]. Should you decide to switch before this five-year period has elapsed, your previous provider may charge you a fee of maximum 150 euros as an administrative flat fee. This cap on switching costs ensures that the financial hurdle to switching stays manageable even in the early years. For a precise calculation of your individual switching scenario and the potential capital gain, the subsidy calculator is available to you.

For self-directed savers, this rule means a high degree of financial freedom. You aren't forced to stay with a broker for decades whose fee structure might change to your disadvantage. If a new broker offers permanently cheaper savings-plan terms as a result of market competition, you can transfer your accumulated capital and benefit from the savings. You'll find further, more detailed information on statutory details and provider models on the knowledge section. Please note that providers' specific pricing terms may vary (not investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG).

Worked example: how small fee differences play out over the long run

For self-directed savers who want to build their retirement provision independently through the new Altersvorsorgedepot, controlling costs is the most important lever for long-term wealth building. Because state-subsidised saving from 2027 allows flexible investment in low-cost ETFs, the level of the provider's fees directly determines your later pension^[4]. Through the compound-interest effect, a seemingly minor difference of just 0.5% in total annual costs can add up to a difference of several thousand euros over a typical 30-year accumulation phase.

To illustrate this effect, let's look at a practical, illustrative worked example. A saver pays 150 euros a month into an Altersvorsorgedepot over a period of 30 years (54,000 euros in total). We assume an average annual gross return on the securities investment of 6.0%. In scenario A, the investor opts for a very low-cost combination of a neobroker account and ETF with total annual costs (TER and account administration) of just 0.2%. In scenario B, additional account fees or more expensive product costs bring total annual costs to 0.7%, a difference of exactly 0.5% a year.

This worked example vividly demonstrates the power of compound interest. Simply by choosing a low-cost provider, you keep over 11,000 euros more for your private retirement provision, without taking on any higher investment risk. Self-directed savers therefore benefit from a thorough comparison of account and execution fees before signing a contract, via our knowledge section. For an individual projection of your state allowances and the long-term cost effects, we also recommend our interactive subsidy calculator.

Not investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG. The calculations and figures shown in this worked example are for illustrating the mathematical cost effect only and do not constitute investment recommendations, financial advice or a guaranteed performance. The actual performance of your account depends on real market developments and your individual choice of funds.