Passive ETFs vs Active Funds: Is Active Investing Dying?

In the evolving landscape of global financial markets, one of the most pervasive questions among investors, advisors, and market commentators is straightforward yet profound: Is active investing dying? The rise of passive investing — especially through Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) — has reshaped asset flows, investor expectations, and industry economics. But despite the explosive growth of passive strategies, active funds continue to play a role in many portfolios. This article explores the dynamics of Passive ETFs vs Active Funds in 2026, addressing performance, cost, behavioural aspects, structural shifts, and whether active investing is fading or merely adapting.

What Do We Mean by Passive and Active?

Passive Investing
Passive strategies aim to replicate the performance of a chosen benchmark index rather than beat it. Broadly speaking, Passive ETFs track major indices such as global equities, regional indices, sectors, or fixed income benchmarks. Because of their automated, rules-based construction, they have:

• Lower costs (expense ratios),

• Transparent holdings,

• Low turnover.

Active Investing
Active funds, on the other hand, involve professional portfolio managers making discretionary decisions — buying, selling, and tilting the portfolio based on research, forecasts, and market views. The goal is to outperform a benchmark index after costs. Active strategies are common in mutual funds, hedge funds, and increasingly in some active ETFs.

The Rise of Passive Investing

Passive investing has grown from a niche idea in the 1970s and 1980s to a dominant force in capital markets. By 2025–2026:

• ETF/Passive asset growth around the world has accelerated, with trillions of dollars deployed into index trackers across equities, fixed income, and multi-asset exposures.

• Investors, especially retail participants, have favoured passive strategies for their simplicity, low cost, and diversification benefits.

The inflows into passive products relative to active ones — particularly in equities — have captured headlines. In certain large markets like the United States and parts of Europe, passive strategies account for a significant portion of total managed assets in public equities.

Performance Reality: Who Wins?

Long-Term Passive Averages

One of the core premises of passive investing is that over long periods, it is difficult for active managers to consistently outperform broad market indexes, especially after costs. Empirical studies repeatedly show that a large share of active funds underperform their benchmarks over 5–10 year periods, once fees and taxes are considered.

The Active Advantage (Occasionally)

However, there are areas where active management still adds value:

1. Inefficient Markets:
   In markets with less transparency, lower liquidity, or structural inefficiencies (emerging markets, small caps, distressed debt), active managers have historically delivered stronger relative performance than in highly efficient large-cap markets.

2. Downside Management:
   Active funds can – in certain environments – reduce exposure to risk when valuations look stretched or macro risks spike. Passive funds must stay fully invested by design.

3. Thematic & Tactical Expertise:
   Long-term thematic investing, sector rotation, and tactical asset allocation can benefit from active input — though even here the performance evidence is mixed.

Headwinds for Active Performance

Active managers face three structural challenges:

• Higher Fees: Active strategies typically charge more than passive ones. In an era where every basis point matters, higher fees erode net returns.

• Benchmarking Gordian Knot: Many active managers measure success merely against broad indexes rather than holistic, risk-adjusted goals.

• Talent Dispersion: Star manager effects fade when strategies scale or when hundreds of peers adopt similar decisions.

Costs: The Passive Advantage

Perhaps the most visible difference between passive ETFs and active funds is cost:

Lower expenses mean that passive investors get to keep more of the market return. Over decades, even small cost differences can translate into significant wealth divergence due to compounding.

The Role of Taxes

Passive ETFs can be more tax-efficient in certain jurisdictions because they reduce trading turnover and, in some markets, benefit from in-kind creation/redemption mechanics. Active funds generate more taxable events due to frequent trading, which can create a drag on after-tax returns for investors.

Behavioural Realities: Why Investors Choose Each

Passive Investors Often Seek:

• Predictability (market returns)

• Lower fees

• Diversification without bets

• “Set and forget” simplicity

Active Investors Often Seek:

• Outperformance

• Downside protection

• Exposure to inefficiencies or differentiated views

• Customised outcomes (e.g., ethical overlays, thematic strategies)

Importantly, behavioural biases affect both approaches: passive investors may buy at market peaks during hype, while active investors may tilt into over-concentrated bets.

Is Active Investing Dead?

No. Not even close. But its role is evolving.

Where Active Investing Still Has a Purpose:

1. Complex, inefficient asset classes: Distressed debt, corporate credit selection, private markets, real estate — areas where passive options do not exist or are limited.

2. Custom portfolio strategies: Matching cash-flow needs, liability-driven investing, risk budgeting — often require active decision frameworks.

3. Downside defense in rolling crises: A disciplined active manager can, in certain cases, preserve capital where passive has no choice but to stay fully invested.

4. Niche outperformance stories: Certain active funds have defied odds and delivered sustained alpha after fees.

Where Active Investing Struggles:

• In broad, efficient equity markets,

• Against very low-cost passive alternatives,

• When performance is benchmarked on headline indices without risk context.

Evidence from 2025–26

Data through late 2025 shows that:

• Passive products continue to attract strong inflows globally, especially into broad equity and fixed income ETFs.

• A number of active funds still outperform — particularly in niche segments, emerging markets, and certain fixed income universes.

• Close to half of active equity managers still underperform their index benchmarks over full market cycles once fees and costs are included.

• Fee compression and competition have forced many active managers to rethink their value propositions.

These realities shape a nuanced landscape where passive does not replace active — it selectively displaces it in specific contexts.

Costs vs Value: The Active Debate

Active management is sometimes dismissed as “expensive theatre” — a view rooted in the difficulty of outperforming efficient markets. But cost alone does not equate to value. Management fees pay for research, risk management, and human expertise.

The key question is whether the value produced exceeds the cost incurred. In many broad markets, average active performance fails this test; in others, it may justify the price.

Where Active Investing Still Makes Sense

1. Credit and Fixed Income

Passive bond ETFs exist, but they may not capture credit risk nuances or liquidity premiums. Active fixed income managers can adjust duration, credit quality, and sector positioning dynamically.

2. Smaller Companies and Inefficient Segments

Small-cap, frontier, and certain international markets may reward active selection due to lower analyst coverage and higher dispersion of returns.

3. Tactical Asset Allocation

During extreme volatility or regime shifts, an active perspective can reduce risks or exploit short-term anomalies that passive strategies cannot.

4. Customised Mandates

Institutional investors with constraints — ethical screens, tax considerations, special exposures — need active frameworks.

A Blended Conclusion: Active and Passive

For most long-term investors today, the smart solution is neither “All passive” nor “All active” but a blend:

• Use Passive ETFs for core exposures (broad equities, core fixed income).

• Use Active Funds or managers for segments where inefficiency exists or tactical flexibility is desired.

• Rebalance periodically rather than chase short-term performance.

This hybrid solution recognises that markets are partly efficient and partly not. Passive strategies harvest risk-premia cheaply; active strategies attempt — imperfectly but sometimes successfully — to add value on top of that.

Will Active Investing Die?

Active investing will not die. What will fade are unjustified high-fee strategies that fail to deliver value. The next decade is more likely to see:

• Active strategies that justify fees with transparent performance attribution.

• Passive strategies that expand into new asset classes and smart beta frameworks.

• Investors using passive and active tools in combination rather than choosing one dogmatically.

Active investing is not obsolete — it must evolve to demonstrate real value in a world of low cost and abundant data.

Practical Takeaways for 2026 Investors

1. Do not dismiss active funds outright — evaluate them on cost-adjusted performance in the context of your goals and time horizon.

2. Use passive ETFs for long-term core exposures, especially in efficient markets, to minimise drag.

3. Allocate active exposure where it makes sense: inefficient markets, tactical outlooks, or customised mandates.

4. Pay attention to total cost of ownership, not just expense ratio — trading costs, tax drag, and implementation matter.

5. Rebalance regularly to maintain your strategic allocation.

Final Thoughts

The narrative of “passive vs active” is not a death knell for one side or the other; it is a reminder that investors must focus on purpose, cost, and execution. Passive ETFs and active funds are tools — not sects. The challenge in 2026 and beyond is to use these tools wisely, matching them to specific goals instead of ideological camps.

Active investing is not dying — it is being refined.
Passive investing is not a panacea — it is a foundation.

The best portfolios will likely incorporate both, guided by cost discipline and thoughtful allocation.

ALSO READ: The bond issue that never funded its stated project