What does an Altersvorsorgedepot cost?

Tilman Freyenhagen

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

The foundation: two cost levels at a glance

The costs of an Altersvorsorgedepot split into two main levels: the provider's account costs (such as account administration, and order and savings-plan fees) and the product costs of the particular investment (ongoing ETF or fund costs, measured by the TER). On top of that, additional transfer or service fees may apply. What matters for long-term wealth building is the sum of all costs, because even minimal percentage differences have a substantial effect on returns over several decades^[1]. Anyone acting as a self-directed saver who wants to optimise their own retirement provision needs to understand this system in order to compare providers transparently.

Account costs versus product costs

When choosing the right account in the knowledge section, you should analyse both levels separately. While online brokers often offer very cheap account costs, the internal fund costs (Total Expense Ratio, or TER) of the chosen ETFs also play a decisive role in overall returns. For state-subsidised standard products, the Altersvorsorgereformgesetz (Pension Reform Act) also sets a statutory cost cap of 1.0 percent of average annual effective costs^[1]. This cap protects investors from overpriced offers, but savvy self-directed savers can stay well below this limit by specifically choosing low-cost ETFs and a fee-free neobroker.

To pin down the long-term effect of these fees precisely, it's worth looking at the effective cost ratio (reduction in yield), which sums up all the charges in a single percentage figure. With the subsidy calculator, you can work out and compare for yourself the concrete effects of different cost scenarios on your expected final balance. Note: the calculations are for illustration only. Not investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG.

Account costs: the provider's fees in detail

With an Altersvorsorgedepot (AVD), you fundamentally need to distinguish between the product costs of the investment and the provider's pure account costs. Account costs are the fees charged directly by the account-holding institution. These include standard account administration fees, transaction charges for buying securities, and execution fees for regular savings plans. For the state-subsidised standard product, a statutory cap of a maximum 1.0 percent effective costs a year applies from launch in 2027^[2]. This cost cap protects you from overpriced contracts, but it's no guarantee of the cheapest option.

The differences between provider types have a massive impact on your final savings, because fees erode the compound-interest effect over the decades. As a self-directed saver, you can specifically choose providers with minimal account and order fees to maximise your net return. To calculate precisely how different fee scenarios affect your pension in the long run, you can use our source-based subsidy calculator. For a deeper analysis and a systematic comparison of the available account models, our knowledge section offers detailed, source-backed guides. A careful comparison is always worthwhile, because every euro saved in fees flows directly into your personal retirement savings. Note: all figures are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG.

Product costs: what ETF and fund providers keep

Alongside account administration fees, product costs largely determine the real return on your Altersvorsorgedepot. These costs stay at the level of the chosen investment funds and are deducted directly from the fund's assets via the so-called total expense ratio (TER). By law, certified standard products under the Altersvorsorgedepot are subject to a cost cap of 1.0 percent for total effective costs^[3]. As a self-directed saver, however, you can comfortably undercut this statutory ceiling by structuring your portfolio yourself with low-cost ETFs via the knowledge section.

The cost difference between asset classes acts as a massive lever on your final capital over the decades of wealth building. While an actively managed equity fund with annual costs of 1.5 to 2.0 percent noticeably drags down performance, passive ETFs exploit the same compound-interest effect with high efficiency. A broadly diversified world ETF often costs less than 0.2 percent a year. Over a term of thirty years, this seemingly small difference of just over one percentage point can amount to a difference of several tens of thousands of euros in the pension capital available to you. To calculate these mathematical effects on your personal savings goal precisely, our neutral subsidy calculator is available to you. Not investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG.

The statutory Standarddepot: the 1.0 percent cost cap

With the reform of subsidised private pension provision, the legislator introduces a certified standard product from 2027. This regulated product is meant to protect consumers from unfavourable, overpriced contracts. The most important regulatory shield here is the statutory cost cap: the annual reduction in yield caused by costs, also known as effective costs, is limited to a maximum of 1.0 percent for this Standarddepot^[2]. This ceiling ensures that your savings contributions and state allowances flow directly into building your wealth, instead of being eroded by high administration or distribution fees.

For you as a self-directed saver, this statutory cap forms an excellent benchmark. When comparing private pension offers or neobrokers, you now know that a certified standard product may never cost you more than 1.0 percent of return a year^[2]. If the fees of an unregulated offer are higher, its return potential first has to make up for this cost disadvantage. With our subsidy calculator, you can simulate the long-term effects of different cost scenarios on your accumulated capital and compare different paths.

Please always bear in mind, for all comparisons and projections: worked examples and simulated cost trends are for illustration and general guidance only. They do not constitute binding investment advice (not investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG).

Switching fees and changing provider: rules from 2027

Anyone wanting to transfer their subsidised savings to another provider benefits from clear statutory protections from 2027. Switching provider with the new Altersvorsorgedepot is capped at maximum switching costs of 150 euros in the first five years after signing the contract, and is completely fee-free from the sixth contract year onward^[2]. This statutory cap ensures that self-directed savers aren't kept tied to an expensive or poorly performing provider by excessive switching barriers. That means you keep full flexibility over your private retirement provision at all times.

The statutory switching rules at a glance

The statutory provisions under the Altersvorsorge-Reformgesetz (Pension Reform Act) precisely regulate the fees for switching provider, to promote competition and protect consumer interests. The following overview shows the applicable ceilings for transferring accumulated capital:

This statutory rule considerably eases the switching process for self-directed savers, as it does away with the often uncalculable transfer costs of traditional pension insurance policies. When you use our platform's provider comparison service, you can search risk-free for cheaper alternatives. An optimised account with lower ongoing costs can make a considerable difference to your final return over the decades of the accumulation phase.

Before initiating a switch, however, you should carefully weigh up the interplay between switching fees and the tax benefits you'd give up. With our digital subsidy calculator on the knowledge section, you can easily work out whether a transfer pays off for your individual investment strategy. For deeper questions, our independent advice service is also available to help you find a tailored solution. Note: the figures and calculations shown are for illustrative purposes only. Not investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG.

The cost-return maths: how fees eat into your pension

The long-term return on your Altersvorsorgedepot is significantly shaped by the fee structure. Even a seemingly small difference of 0.5 percentage points in annual costs can amount to a difference of several tens of thousands of euros in your pension capital over a typical accumulation period of 30 or 40 years. This leverage rests on the long-term dynamics of the compound-interest effect. Because every euro a provider keeps for account administration or product management is removed from the cycle, you miss out on substantial reinvestment returns over the decades^[4].

A direct comparison shows just how massive an effect this optimisation has in the long run. For a model calculation, we assume a monthly savings contribution of 150 euros over a 30-year term and an assumed gross return of 6.0 percent a year on the global stock market.

Under the new rules for the Altersvorsorgedepot, a statutory cost cap of 1.0 percent a year is set for the state-certified standard product. While this limit offers important protection against extremely expensive legacy contracts, self-directed savers taking their own initiative can set their cost base far below it. By specifically choosing a neobroker and investing in broadly diversified ETFs, the annual cost ratio can often be reduced to 0.2 to 0.3 percent. In our knowledge section, we show you how to structure and compare such cost-efficient portfolios.

To simulate the precise impact of different fee scenarios on your individual pension, the subsidy calculator is available on our portal. This tool calculates both nominal and real values, taking state allowances into account. Please note: the calculations set out above are purely an illustrative example to clarify the mathematical relationships and do not represent a guaranteed performance or a recommendation. Not investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG.

Possible additional costs: what self-directed savers need to watch for

For private retirement provision, a statutory cost cap of 1.0 percent a year applies to the state-subsidised standard Altersvorsorgedepot from launch in 2027^[5]. Anyone who takes the reins as a self-directed saver and runs an individual Altersvorsorgedepot can stay well under this statutory limit by specifically choosing extremely low-cost neobrokers and ETFs. To make the most of the state subsidy and the tax benefits, though, you should by no means look only at the obvious account administration fee or the total expense ratio (TER) of the chosen products. Additional fee structures are often hidden in the small print, and these can significantly erode your long-term net return. Because every extra fee noticeably affects the compound-interest effect over accumulation phases of thirty or forty years, a careful analysis of all secondary costs is essential.

The critical cost factors in the small print

• Bid-ask spread: this difference between the buying and selling price of an ETF is an indirect but constant cost factor. Especially outside the main trading hours of Xetra, Germany's leading stock exchange, these spreads can widen noticeably for self-directed savers and needlessly push up the cost of regular savings-plan executions in the account.
• Foreign-currency fees: if you invest in globally focused equity ETFs that are denominated in US dollars or other foreign currencies, some account providers charge additional fees for automatic currency conversion (so-called FX spreads). These costs are incurred unnoticed on every single purchase or sale.
• Service flat fees and switching costs: these include charges for the postal delivery of documents, optional extra services, or later account transfers. Even though the legislator provides strict cost caps for switching existing Riester contracts, you should still examine the fee structure closely for any later switch of your Altersvorsorgedepot.

A detailed comparison of fee schedules is therefore the most important foundation for savers acting independently. To pin down precisely how such costs and the state subsidy affect your future final capital, the interactive subsidy calculator is available to you. Please note our legal disclaimer here: all calculations and simulation data are for general information only and do not constitute personal financial or investment advice (not investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG).

Comparing providers for the Altersvorsorgedepot: how to find the best deal

For self-directed savers taking responsibility for their own retirement provision, systematically comparing account providers is the most important lever for maximising returns. The Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) has set a statutory cost cap of 1.0 percent effective costs a year for the state-certified standard product^[2]. Anyone who compares the choice of account and investment products themselves, however, can easily bring total costs down to under 0.5 percent a year. Every fee saved flows straight into the compound-interest effect over the decades of the accumulation phase.

Two levels of cost structure compared

To assess offers fairly, we need to distinguish between the costs of the account provider (account costs) and the costs of the investment products themselves (product costs). While the former are charged directly by the broker, product costs are incurred within the ETF.

When comparing, you should pay attention not just to the fees themselves but especially to a broad, low-cost range of ETF savings plans. Our provider comparison helps you transparently analyse neobrokers' terms, to find the optimal balance between low order fees and a broad selection of funds. In addition, you can use the subsidy calculator to simulate how different fee rates affect your final capital in the long run. A neutral look at the numbers shows that combining fee-free account administration with a low-cost world ETF lets you make the most of the state subsidy, without expensive administration fees eating into your return advantage. Not investment advice within the meaning of § 1 Abs. 1a Nr. 1a KWG.