Published On : September 2026
This page groups the twenty companies covered in the Australia managed accounts market into four operating-model categories: national wealth platforms and platform providers, independent and specialist managed account providers, asset managers and model portfolio manufacturers, and private client and adviser technology providers. This is analyst judgment on public operating-model positioning, not a source-stated ranking, and states nothing about revenue scale, provider size or comparative investment performance for any company named.
Grouping by operating model rather than by size also better reflects how practices actually shortlist providers in practice: a practice has usually already decided whether it wants a bundled national platform or a specialist standalone provider before it starts comparing specific companies within that category, making operating model the more useful first filter.
Company positioning within a category can also shift over time as a business expands its service offering, meaning this grouping reflects each company's primary operating model as observed at the time of this report rather than a permanent classification.
HUB24, Netwealth, Praemium and BT Panorama anchor this category, each operating large-scale administration and custody infrastructure that supports managed accounts alongside superannuation, insurance and broader wealth management functionality. Colonial First State and AMP round out this group with established platform businesses carrying substantial existing adviser networks. These providers typically built their managed account capability on the custodial and non-custodial models covered elsewhere in this report, with most offering both options across their platform suite.
This category's scale gives it a structural advantage in dealer group distribution, since a national platform's existing integration with a licensee's broader technology stack often makes it the path of least resistance when a dealer group is selecting an approved managed account provider.
Scale in this category also brings genuine investment in adviser support infrastructure, including dedicated relationship management teams, training programs and integration support, resources that smaller and newer entrants in the specialist and independent categories generally cannot match at the same breadth even where their core managed account functionality is comparably strong.
Several companies in this category have grown their managed account capability through acquisition of smaller specialist providers rather than purely organic development, a pattern that has accelerated consolidation within this category specifically even as the broader market continues to see new specialist entrants at the smaller end.
|
COMPETITIVE WATCH The distinction between platform providers and specialist managed account providers has narrowed as national platforms acquire managed-account-specific technology capability, meaning practices evaluating providers increasingly compare functional depth rather than category label alone. |
Mason Stevens, Dash Technology Group, Lonsec Investment Solutions and Evidentia Group operate as independent specialists focused specifically on the managed account layer, integrating with a practice's existing custody or platform arrangement rather than bundling their own full wealth platform.
This specialist positioning typically appeals to larger or more sophisticated advice practices seeking deeper managed-account-specific functionality than a generalist national platform's managed account module provides, particularly practices running individually managed accounts or unified managed accounts where the additional structuring flexibility a specialist offers matters more than platform bundling convenience.
These providers generally compete on the depth of their managed account tooling rather than on breadth of adjacent wealth services, an approach that has allowed several of them to win business from larger, more diversified platforms specifically on managed-account functionality even where the larger platform offers a broader overall service suite.
Several of these specialists have built particular strength in servicing self-managed super fund trustees specifically, reflecting the segment's need for close integration between managed account administration and superannuation-specific compliance reporting, an integration depth that a broader generalist platform does not always prioritise to the same degree.
Zenith Investment Partners, BlackRock Australia, Vanguard Australia and Morningstar Investment Management Australia manufacture model portfolios distributed through multiple platforms rather than operating platform infrastructure themselves, competing on investment research depth and model portfolio construction capability across the strategy categories covered in this report rather than on administration or custody features.
Because these firms distribute the same model portfolios across many platforms simultaneously, a practice's choice of underlying platform and its choice of model portfolio manufacturer are largely independent decisions, letting an adviser mix and match investment content from one provider with administration infrastructure from an entirely different one.
The commercial relationship between an asset manager and a platform typically involves the asset manager receiving a fee for the model portfolio's ongoing management, layered on top of whatever administration fee the platform itself charges, meaning a client's total cost stack often includes a payment to the platform and a separate payment to the model portfolio manufacturer even where the client experiences this as a single combined fee.
This distribution approach lets an asset manager reach a far larger pool of end clients through many platform relationships than it could through a single proprietary distribution channel alone.
Perpetual Private, Ord Minnett, JBWere and Australian Unity Wealth serve private wealth and high-net-worth client segments directly, often combining managed account delivery with broader private banking or advisory relationships rather than distributing purely through independent adviser networks.
Equity Trustees and Count Limited round out this category, the former providing trustee and responsible entity services that underpin some managed account structures, the latter operating as a licensee group whose affiliated practices are significant managed account platform users in their own right.
These four private-client-focused firms typically maintain narrower distribution than the national platforms but deeper individual client relationships, reflecting a business model built around fewer, larger client relationships rather than broad-based adviser network distribution.
The trustee and responsible entity services Equity Trustees provides sit somewhat apart from the other three companies in this category, since these services underpin the legal structure of certain managed investment schemes and separately managed account arrangements rather than serving clients directly, making Equity Trustees a business-to-business infrastructure provider within an otherwise client-facing category.
Count Limited's position as a licensee group whose affiliated practices are themselves significant platform users also illustrates a broader pattern in this market, where the line between a licensee, a distribution channel and a direct managed account user can blur for a single organisation operating across all three roles simultaneously.
The twenty companies profiled here were selected to represent the four operating-model categories described above rather than to form an exhaustive list of every business touching the Australian managed accounts market. Readers evaluating a provider not named here should assess it against the same four-category framework, checking which platform model it supports and which distribution channel it primarily serves, since those two factors predict its likely fit for a given practice far better than provider size alone.
The four-category framework used throughout this page is intended to remain useful even as individual companies enter, exit or reposition within the market, since the underlying operating-model distinctions it describes reflect structural differences in how a business is built rather than any single company's current market position.
New entrants continue to appear in this market, particularly in the specialist and adviser technology categories, as the underlying managed account infrastructure has become more accessible to build on top of than it was when the largest national platforms first established their managed account capability, lowering the barrier for a focused new provider to compete on a specific functional strength rather than needing to match the full breadth of an established platform from day one.
Readers should treat every provider named in this report as one credible option among several within its category, rather than as a definitive shortlist, since practice-specific factors ultimately determine the best fit far more than any general category positioning can capture.
This report covers twenty companies including HUB24, Netwealth, Praemium, Mason Stevens, BlackRock Australia and Vanguard Australia, grouped by operating model into national platforms, independent specialists, asset managers and private client providers.
National wealth platforms bundle managed accounts with superannuation, insurance and broader wealth infrastructure, while independent specialists focus purely on the managed account layer and integrate with a practice's existing custody arrangement.
Asset managers such as Zenith Investment Partners and Vanguard Australia manufacture model portfolios distributed through multiple third-party platforms, competing on investment research and portfolio construction rather than platform infrastructure.
Perpetual Private, Ord Minnett, JBWere and Australian Unity Wealth serve this segment, often combining managed account delivery with broader private banking or advisory relationships.
The grouping reflects analyst judgment on each company's public operating-model positioning rather than a source-stated ranking, and makes no claim about revenue scale or comparative investment performance.