Global pension assets rose to a record $68.3trn (£49.9trn) in 2025, up by 9.6% year-on-year, driven by strong market performance and the continued expansion of defined contribution (DC) savings, according to the latest Global Pension Assets Study from Thinking Ahead Institute.
The study estimates that global pension funds added $6trn in asset value over the year, reflecting a sustained recovery across major markets, strong investor sentiment and relatively contained volatility. This is despite the global financial impact of trade tariffs imposed by the US on dozens of countries, and geopolitical tensions in several regions.
Across the world’s seven largest pension markets, DC arrangements now account for 63% of total assets. Australia and the US remain the most heavily weighted towards DC, while Canada has also seen strong growth, helping it overtake Japan to become the second-largest pension market globally for the first time.
The US continues to dominate overall, accounting for 66% of total assets across the world’s 22 largest pension markets.
By contrast, the UK continues to underperform its peers. UK pension assets grew by just 1.4% per year over the past decade in US dollar terms, the weakest growth rate among major markets except Brazil. As a result, the UK has fallen from second to fourth place in the global rankings since 2015.
The report links this trend to structural change within the UK pensions system, as defined benefit (DB) schemes mature, pay out benefits and de-risk. While DC savings are expanding, this has not been sufficient to offset slower growth elsewhere. DC now represents around 40% of UK pension assets, up from 18% in 2020.
Looking ahead, Jessica Gao, director at the Thinking Ahead Institute, said pension funds were facing a more complex and uncertain investment environment.
“Now more than ever, adopting a ‘Total Portfolio Approach’ matters because the investment environment is more uncertain, complex and interdependent than the governance models that many funds have relied on,” she said. “Rapid technological change as well as more prominent political and systemic risks demand frameworks that can operate with less certainty and weaker model stability.”
