401(k) Benchmark Review

What are we looking for?  Performance gaps, hidden fees/ high fees, fudiciary and processes.

Better 401(k) outcomes often come from strategy and structure...not from working harder or contributing more

Experience matters!

A client came to us for comprehensive financial planning, which included a detailed review of their existing 401(k). What we discovered was common: a limited investment lineup with higher costs and little flexibility, which makes consistent performance difficult over time.

Rather than accept the default options, we identified a self-directed brokerage feature within the plan that had gone largely unused. By thoughtfully utilizing this option, we aligned the client’s 401(k) strategy with their broader financial plan and risk profile.

Over the following years, the client experienced meaningfully improved outcomes relative to peers who remained in the standard plan options—without changing employers or increasing contributions. The difference was not the market, but the strategy and how the plan was used.

Is your 401(k) working as hard as it should?

SDBA (Self Directed Brokerage Account) Education

This review is educational in nature and does not constitute investment advice.  No specific results are guaranteed.  Individual outcomes depend on plan design, market conditions, and personal circumstances

Our 401(k) Benchmark Review

A 401(k) plan should be evaluated regularly to ensure it remains competitive, cost-effective, and aligned with participant needs. Our Benchmark Review provides a structured, objective assessment of key plan components, highlighting potential gaps, inefficiencies, and opportunities for improvement..

1. Plan Costs & Fees

We assess total plan costs relative to similarly sized plans, including:

  • Investment expense ratios

  • Recordkeeping and administrative fees

  • Advisor and third-party compensation

Prudent consideration: Identifying opportunities to reduce unnecessary costs or improve fee transparency.

2. Investment Menu Construction

We review how the investment lineup is structured, including:

  • Diversification across asset classes

  • Overlap or redundancy among funds

  • Availability of risk-based or target-date options

Prudent consideration: Streamlining the lineup or improving diversification to better support participant

3. Net-of-Fee Performance Context

Rather than focusing on short-term results, we evaluate performance after fees and in context:

  • Relative to appropriate benchmarks

  • Across full market cycles

  • Compared to peer plans

Prudent consideration: Determining whether available options are reasonably competitive over time.

4. Self-Directed Brokerage Availability

We identify whether the plan offers a self-directed brokerage option and:

  • How it is structured

  • Whether participants are aware of it

  • Whether safeguards and education are in place

Prudent consideration: Improving participant awareness or education around plan features that may already exist.

5. Plan Design & Participant Outcomes

We review structural elements that influence outcomes, such as:

  • Default investment options

  • Auto enrollment and escalation features

  • Access to participant education and guidance

Prudent consideration: Adjustments that may improve participation, diversification, or long-term outcomes without increasing complexity.

6. Fiduciary Process & Documentation

We evaluate whether the plan sponsor’s process is documented and repeatable:

  • Investment policy statement (IPS) alignment

  • Review cadence and committee practices

  • Decision making documentation

Prudent consideration: Strengthening fiduciary process rather than reacting to performance alone.

Why Benchmarking matters

Many underperforming plans are not “bad plans".  They are unreviewed plans. Benchmarking helps plan sponsors and participants move from assumption to understanding, ensuring decisions are made with current data and a clear fiduciary process.