UK savings & platform fee statistics — August 2026
Illustrative comparison data — not personal financial advice. Every figure is computed from provider-published rates and fee schedules; verify current numbers on the provider’s own pages before acting.
The 22 statistics below are derived mechanically from the rates and fee schedules Feefee tracks across UK savings accounts, Cash ISAs, investing platforms and pension providers. Nothing is hand-written: each number is recomputed whenever the underlying data is re-verified, and each provider figure links back to a dated source at /sources.
Quoting a figure? Attribute it as “according to feefee.money comparison data (checked 19 August 2026)” and link this page rather than restating the number — rates move between verifications. Each heading below has its own anchor for deep-linking a single statistic.
The gap between the highest and lowest Cash ISA rate Feefee tracks is 3.50 percentage points — worth £700 a year on a full £20,000 allowance.
As of August 2026, the highest-rate Cash ISA in Feefee's tracked dataset is Atom at 4.25% AER and the lowest is Lloyds savings at 0.75% AER, across 18 tracked Cash ISA providers. On a full £20,000 annual ISA allowance, that spread is worth £700 a year in interest before any compounding. Feefee records each provider's standard published rate — the rate a typical existing customer receives — and logs new-customer promotional uplifts separately, so this comparison is standard-to-standard where the data distinguishes the two. Both ends of the range are variable rates: either provider can change its rate at any time, and several high-street banks at the bottom of the table have cut variable ISA rates repeatedly through the current Bank of England rate cycle. The ranking is mechanical, sorted by published rate with no commercial input. Rates move, so confirm the current figure on the provider's own page before opening or transferring an account.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
Big-four bank Cash ISAs average 1.35% against 3.80% at the challenger banks Feefee tracks — a gap worth £489 a year on £20,000.
Averaging the standard Cash ISA rates of the savings arms of Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and NatWest gives 1.35% AER as of August 2026. The 7 app-led and online-only challenger banks in Feefee's dataset that offer a Cash ISA average 3.80% AER over the same period — a difference of 2.45 percentage points. On a full £20,000 ISA allowance that difference compounds from £489 in the first year. The protection position is the same on both sides of the gap: each provider in both groups holds deposits at an FCA/PRA-authorised bank, where FSCS deposit cover is £120,000 per eligible person per authorised firm (since 1 December 2025). These are simple unweighted averages of the standard published rates in Feefee's dataset, not balance-weighted market shares, and individual accounts within each bank can pay more or less than the group average. Confirm current rates on the provider's own page.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
Easy-access savings at the big four banks average 1.16%, against 3.24% at tracked challenger banks — £207 a year of difference on a £10,000 pot.
The standard easy-access savings rates of the big four high-street banking groups — Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and NatWest — average 1.16% AER in Feefee's dataset as of August 2026. The 8 challenger banks Feefee tracks average 3.24% AER on easy-access money, 2.07 percentage points more. A saver holding £10,000 earns roughly £207 more per year at the challenger average than at the big-four average, at the same FSCS deposit protection level of £120,000 per person per authorised firm. One caveat cuts both ways: some headline easy-access rates on each side carry conditions, such as withdrawal limits or bonus rates that lapse if money is moved, and those conditions live in the account terms rather than the headline number. The figures here are unweighted averages of standard published rates, compared mechanically; they are illustrative comparison data, not a recommendation of any provider.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
10 of the 24 savings providers Feefee tracks advertise a promotional headline rate above the standard rate existing customers keep — the average drop after the promo is 1.15 percentage points.
Feefee's dataset separates promotional rates from standard rates wherever a provider publishes both, and as of August 2026 it records 12 promo-to-standard splits across 10 providers, out of 24 tracked providers offering Cash ISAs or easy-access savings. The promotional uplifts are typically twelve-month new-customer bonuses; once the bonus period ends the account reverts to the standard rate, and the average reversion recorded in the dataset is 1.15 percentage points. This matters for comparison because a table sorted on promotional headlines rewards the providers with the largest first-year bonus rather than the highest ongoing rate. Feefee's comparison surfaces lead with the standard rate and footnote the promo for exactly that reason. A promotional rate is not a defect — a saver willing to move money annually can collect the bonuses — but the standard rate is the one an account settles at, so comparisons here treat it as the headline. Not advice; verify terms with each provider.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
The largest bonus-to-standard rate drop Feefee tracks is 2.30 percentage points — at HSBC UK (savings), the easy-access savings rate falls from 3.35% to 1.05% once the bonus conditions end.
Among the promotional-rate splits in Feefee's dataset, the steepest reversion as of August 2026 belongs to HSBC UK (savings): its easy-access savings pays 3.35% AER while the account's bonus or promotional conditions hold, and reverts to a standard rate of 1.05% AER once they lapse — whether that is an introductory period expiring or a conditional bonus (such as a no-withdrawal requirement) being broken. On a £10,000 balance, the reversion is worth about £230 a year in interest. Reversions of this size are the strongest argument for reading the standard rate before the headline one: a saver who opens the account for the headline figure and then stops paying attention earns the lower rate from the point the conditions fail. The dataset stores both figures with the provider's own page as the source, so comparison tables can show the bonus as a documented uplift rather than as the ongoing rate. Check the current offer terms directly before relying on either number.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
Annual platform fees on a £100,000 SIPP range from £0 (Trading 212) to £1,670 (SJP) across the 19 SIPP providers Feefee tracks.
Normalising every tracked SIPP fee structure — percentage, tiered-percentage, flat monthly, flat annual and composite shapes, including minimum-fee floors and fee caps — to a single annual cost on the same £100,000 balance produces a range from £0 to £1,670 a year as of August 2026. The lowest-fee provider at this balance is Trading 212; the highest is SJP, an adviser-led firm whose headline charge bundles ongoing advice with the product wrapper, so the two ends of the range buy different services as well as different prices. The figures are platform or wrapper charges only: underlying fund costs, dealing charges and foreign-exchange fees sit on top at most providers and differ by portfolio. Because several fee structures are tiered or capped, the ranking order changes with balance — a platform that is lowest-fee at £100,000 is not automatically lowest-fee at £20,000 or £500,000. Mechanical arithmetic on published fee schedules; not advice.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
On a £100,000 pension pot, tracked adviser-led firms average £1,570 a year (1.57%) against £417 (0.42%) at platforms without bundled advice — 3.8 times the ongoing charge.
Feefee tracks 3 adviser-led firms and 14 investing platforms without bundled advice that offer a SIPP or equivalent pension wrapper. Applying each published fee schedule to the same £100,000 balance, the adviser-led group averages £1,570 a year — an effective 1.57% — while the non-advised platform group averages £417, or 0.42%. That is a 3.8-times difference in ongoing charge for the wrapper layer. The comparison is deliberately not like-for-like on service: the adviser-led headline typically bundles ongoing financial advice, and at some firms it excludes underlying fund costs that add further to the all-in figure, while non-advised platforms charge for custody and administration only and leave investment decisions to the customer. Whether advice is worth the difference is a personal judgement Feefee does not make. What the arithmetic shows is the size of the gap being paid for it, on identical balances, as of August 2026.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
An ongoing charge of 1.57% — the tracked adviser-firm average — reduces a £100,000 pot by about 36.4% over 30 years against a zero-platform-fee alternative, assuming 5% annual growth before charges.
Compounding a £100,000 pot for 30 years at an assumed 5% annual growth rate before charges produces £432,194 with no platform or advice fee, and £275,040 when an ongoing charge of 1.57% — the average across the adviser-led firms Feefee tracks, at this balance — is deducted from the growth rate each year. The difference, £157,154, is a 36.4% reduction in the final pot from fees alone, with no contributions added and no withdrawals taken. The 5% growth figure is an assumption for illustration, not a forecast: real returns vary year to year and can be negative, and the percentage reduction from fees holds approximately across different growth assumptions because it is driven by the fee gap compounding, not by the growth level. Zero-platform-fee SIPPs exist in Feefee's dataset, which is why the baseline is zero rather than a token charge. Mechanical arithmetic, not a projection of any actual product.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
The flat-fee versus percentage-fee SIPP crossover sits at about £48,000: below that balance the lowest percentage fee Feefee tracks costs less, above it the lowest flat fee does.
Among tracked SIPP providers that charge a percentage of the balance, the lowest-cost schedule near the crossover is Vanguard's; among providers charging a fixed subscription, the lowest is II Core at £71.88 a year. A percentage fee scales with the pot while a flat fee does not, so there is a balance at which the two lines cross — in the current dataset, at roughly £48,000. Below it, the percentage charge is the smaller number; above it, the flat subscription is. This is the single most useful mechanical fact in platform-fee comparison, because it means "which platform is lowest-fee" has no universal answer — it depends on pot size, and the answer flips as a pot grows. The crossover excludes zero-fee platforms (which undercut both structures at every balance), fund costs and dealing charges, all of which can move an individual's true crossover. Computed by scanning balances against published fee schedules as of August 2026.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
2 tracked platforms cap their percentage fees in cash terms — the lowest cap turns Vanguard's percentage charge into a flat £375 a year above £250,000.
A percentage platform fee with a cash cap behaves like two different products: a percentage fee below the cap threshold and a flat fee above it. In Feefee's dataset as of August 2026, 2 platforms apply such a cap across their investment wrappers. The earliest-binding example is Vanguard: its 0.15% charge stops growing at £375 a year, which happens once the balance passes £250,000. Beyond that point, every additional pound invested is administered at no extra platform cost, and the effective percentage rate falls continuously as the pot grows. Caps are why large pots often rank platforms in a completely different order from small pots, and why comparing platforms on the headline percentage alone misleads at both ends of the balance range. Cap levels and thresholds are provider-set and can change; figures are computed from the published fee schedules in Feefee's dataset.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
2 tracked platforms apply a minimum annual charge — the largest floor, Vanguard's £48 a year, turns a headline 0.15% into an effective 0.96% on a £5,000 pot.
Minimum annual charges are the mirror image of fee caps: they quietly raise the effective rate on small balances. In Feefee's dataset as of August 2026, 2 investment platforms have a published minimum. The largest is Vanguard's £48-a-year floor on its 0.15% platform charge, which binds on any balance below about £32,000. On a £5,000 pot, the floor means the saver pays an effective 0.96% — several times the headline rate — and the effective rate keeps rising as the balance shrinks. Floors rarely appear in headline fee tables, which is why Feefee models them structurally in its fee engine rather than as footnotes: a comparison that ignores the floor ranks providers incorrectly for exactly the small, newer pots where fee differences are most persuasive. Small-pot savers comparing platforms can divide the floor by their balance to get the true percentage being charged.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
2 tracked platforms charge no platform fee at all on a stocks & shares ISA, and 2 charge nothing on a SIPP.
As of August 2026, Trading 212 and InvestEngine charge a £0 platform fee on the stocks & shares ISA wrapper, and Trading 212 and InvestEngine do the same on a SIPP. Zero platform fee does not mean zero cost: these businesses fund themselves through other levers their own disclosures describe, such as foreign-exchange charges on non-sterling trades, interest margin on customer cash, securities-lending revenue and adjacent product lines, and underlying fund costs always apply regardless of platform. What the £0 platform fee does change is the comparison arithmetic — a genuinely free wrapper undercuts both flat-fee and percentage-fee structures at every balance, which is why zero-fee providers sit at the bottom of Feefee's normalised cost tables whenever they offer the wrapper being compared. Whether the surrounding product design suits a given saver is a separate question from the fee line, and one worth reading each provider's own schedule to answer.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
Holding a £100,000 stocks & shares ISA costs between £0 and £1,640 a year in platform fees across the 15 providers Feefee tracks.
The same £100,000 stocks & shares ISA balance attracts an annual platform or wrapper charge of £0 at the lowest-fee tracked provider (Trading 212) and £1,640 at the highest (True Potential), a spread of £1,640 every year on an identical pot, as of August 2026. The top of the range is an adviser-led firm whose charge bundles ongoing advice, so part of the spread pays for a different service rather than the same one at a different price; among DIY-only platforms the spread is narrower but still material. Platform fees are only one layer — fund costs, dealing fees and cash-handling terms differ too — but they are the layer that is identical arithmetic across providers, which makes them the cleanest like-for-like comparison the market offers. Fee schedules are tiered or capped at several providers, so the ranking at £100,000 differs from the ranking at other balances. Mechanical comparison of published schedules; not advice.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
On a £10,000 Lifetime ISA, annual platform fees range from £15 (Dodl) to £57 (Moneybox) across 6 tracked providers.
Lifetime ISA pots skew small — the annual contribution limit is £4,000, so many holders are a few years in with balances near £10,000 — which makes the fee comparison at that balance the practically relevant one. Feefee tracks 6 LISA providers; normalising their fee shapes to the same £10,000 balance gives a range of £15 to £57 a year as of August 2026, with Dodl lowest-fee and Moneybox highest. The gap of £42 a year is proportionally large on a small pot: at this balance it equals 0.42% of the holding, every year. Two structural caveats apply. Some providers' charges combine a subscription with a percentage, so their relative position moves with balance, and the LISA wrapper itself carries a 25% government withdrawal charge on withdrawals that are not for a qualifying first home or after age 60 — a wrapper rule, not a provider fee, but a larger number than any platform charge here.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
Idle cash inside a stocks & shares ISA earns between 1.31% and 3.80% depending on platform — a 2.49 percentage points gap worth £249 a year on £10,000 of uninvested cash.
Most platform comparisons stop at the platform fee, but the rate paid on uninvested cash inside the wrapper differs just as widely. Among the tracked platforms that publish a rate for cash held inside a stocks & shares ISA, Trading 212 pays the highest at 3.80% and HL the lowest at 1.31% as of August 2026 — a 2.49 percentage points spread, worth £249 a year to someone holding £10,000 of cash between investments. The mechanism matters as much as the rate: 2 of the 3 platforms in this comparison sweep idle cash into a money-market fund rather than holding it as a bank deposit, which means the cash sits under FSCS investment cover rather than deposit cover — the underlying short-dated government instruments are very low risk, but it is a different protection category. Savers who habitually hold cash inside investment wrappers are paying or earning this spread whether they notice it or not.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
Tracked workplace pension default-fund charges span 0.30% to 0.75% — a difference of £180 a year on a £40,000 pot.
Across the 11 workplace pension providers Feefee tracks, representative default-fund annual management charges run from 0.30% (NEST) to 0.75% (Aegon) as of August 2026. On a £40,000 pot — a plausible mid-career balance — that is £120 against £300 a year, a £180 annual difference for the same wrapper function. Two caveats are essential. UK auto-enrolment default funds are capped at 0.75% by statute, so the whole tracked range sits at or under that ceiling. And the figures here are representative retail or default rates: employer-negotiated schemes frequently pay less, sometimes under half the listed figure, so an individual's scheme booklet outranks any tracked headline. Feefee's engine treats these numbers as illustrative defaults for exactly that reason, and its dashboard accepts a user-supplied fee override where the real scheme rate is known. Old pots from previous jobs are where the range matters most, since nobody is negotiating on their behalf any more.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
One tracked workplace pension provider charges a percentage of every contribution — NEST's 1.80% takes £54 a year from £250-a-month contributions.
Most pension charges are levied on the balance, but NEST also charges 1.80% on every contribution as it arrives, alongside a 0.30% annual management charge on the balance. For a saver contributing £250 a month — £3,000 a year — the contribution charge alone removes £54 annually before the money is invested, as of August 2026. Contribution charges are easy to miss because they never appear in an AMC comparison: two schemes with identical balance charges can differ materially in total cost once inflows are counted, and the difference scales with how much is being paid in rather than how much has accumulated. Feefee models the contribution charge as a separate structural field in its dataset so that the comparison engine can surface both cost layers rather than the AMC alone. The trade-off is not automatically negative — the scheme in question is a government-backed default with a low balance charge — but the full price is the two layers together.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
6 of the 9 current accounts Feefee tracks pay 0% on balances — the highest-rate account pays 3.25%, behind a subscription fee.
As of August 2026, 6 of the 9 tracked current accounts pay no interest at all on positive balances, including the standard accounts of the major high-street banks. The highest current-account rate in the dataset is 3.25% at Monzo, which sits behind a subscription costing £108 a year. The subscription changes the arithmetic: below a balance of about £3,323, the fee exceeds the interest earned, so the effective return is negative. Current-account balances are the largest pool of zero-earning cash in most households, because the money sits there by default rather than by decision. The gap between 0% and the highest tracked easy-access savings rate is pure foregone interest on any balance beyond what a month's spending requires. None of this says where anyone's money is better placed — accounts bundle features beyond interest — but the number of zero-paying accounts is a fact worth knowing when a balance sits untouched for months.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
FSCS deposit protection covers £120,000 per person per authorised firm since 1 December 2025 — of the tracked providers with a classified protection model, 10 are deposit-covered banks, 4 hold FSCS investment cover, and 1 is HM Treasury-backed.
Feefee's dataset classifies each provider's protection model where the provider publishes one, and 15 tracked providers currently carry an explicit classification. 10 are banks whose customer money is held as deposits, protected up to £120,000 per eligible person per authorised firm — the limit raised from £85,000 on 1 December 2025. 3 are investment platforms whose client assets fall under the separate FSCS investment scheme, where the limit is £85,000 per authorised firm — investment cover, distinct from the deposit limit. 1 operates both models at once, holding Cash ISA money at partner banks while investments sit under investment cover. One provider — NS&I — is backed directly by HM Treasury with no upper limit, outside the FSCS entirely. The practical trap the dataset encodes: deposit cover applies per authorised firm, not per brand, so banks sharing one banking licence share one £120,000 limit, and app providers routing deposits through partner banks inherit the partner's limit, not their own.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
Feefee tracks 56 UK providers across 6 product categories, with 56 of 56 carrying a dated link to the provider's own published rate or fee page.
The dataset behind every statistic on this page covers 56 UK providers as of August 2026, grouped into 6 tracked categories spanning current accounts, savings and Cash ISAs, Premium Bonds, investing platforms, workplace pensions and adviser-led firms. 56 of the 56 providers carry a source entry recording the exact page the figure came from and the date it was last verified against that page, published in full at feefee.money/sources. Verification dates are bumped on every re-check even when nothing changed, because a re-confirmed figure is itself a freshness signal, and entries older than roughly six months are flagged as stale on the public sources page rather than silently trusted. Every statistic above is computed from this dataset at build time — none is hand-written — so the page cannot disagree with the comparison tables it summarises. Errors are still possible: providers change rates between verifications, and a figure is only as current as its last-checked date, which is why each number here carries one.
Computed from Feefee's tracked UK provider dataset, last verified 19 August 2026. Per-provider source URLs and review dates are published at feefee.money/sources. Illustrative comparison data, not personal financial advice.
Methodology & caveats
- Computed, not written. Every statistic is derived at build time from the same provider dataset that powers Feefee’s comparison tables. Fee shapes (percentage, tiered, flat, composite, floors and caps) are normalised to annual £ costs on stated reference balances.
- Standard rates lead. Where a provider advertises a promotional headline, the dataset stores the standard ongoing rate separately and comparisons are standard-to-standard, with promos noted as documented uplifts.
- Audit trail. Per-provider source URLs and last-verified dates are published at /sources, and the full rate tables live at /comparison.
- Not advice. Feefee is a publisher of illustrative comparison data. Rankings here are mechanical — sorted by published rate or computed fee, with no commercial input — and are not recommendations or personal financial advice. Rates and fees change between Feefee’s verifications and yours; always confirm on the provider’s own page.