I don't want to break your heart but you are supporting a fraudulent narrative. It is not possible to compare any of these returns.The whole charade returns on funds. Industry super funds as a group do as they please with members’ money, the biggest single asset for most outside the family home – and there is no way for even the educated to understand what is being risked with your retirement savings. They have no credible risk measures – they regularly use semantics to ignore the fact that they have taken on massive risks. To the unsuspecting in their product description – balanced with Aust Super being one of the more obvious exceptions in any other world connected to reality is 50/50 – at the most 60/40 growth to defensive, assets The biggest laugh that follows this now is that the bully boys are seeking to whittle away – “poorly performing industry funds”. Lordy, it is like speaking with children. A pure performance return as an indicator of virtue is entirely meaningless – and the way the industry funds use it is arguably fraudulent. To describe any investments return this way is lunacy. The accepted measures, – measures of risk include standard deviation, beta, value at risk (VaR), and conditional value at risk (CVaR). Quite literally they may well have held people’s retirement savings in Bitcoin and the like for all the transparency of current semantics. The SAA is moved all the time, unlisted assets – all have the hallmark of we know better. – Patriarchal approach. Any competent individual understands return is directly related to risk. (and if they don't understand this and don't describe this – well you need to seek them out and then educate your account holders - note to industry funds you hold people retirement savings in trust - not in ownership = equals they are not yours to play with) Why do we not see risk measures against these standard metrics and from that a credible measure of performance is able to be ascertained. As always sunlight is a great disinfectant.