My USS Log in | Register
My USS Log in | Register
Site map

USS is fifty years young. Learn more about our history on our dedicated page.

Value for money

Delivering value for money is a key focus for USS and our performance in this area is reviewed in depth by the trustee on an annual basis

We assess performance across three areas

Every penny we spend managing the scheme and its investments is drawn from the fund we are working hard to build to pay members’ benefits.

So, it is central to our role in managing the scheme that we keep tight control of costs.

Value for money is, however, more than just how much we spend in absolute terms.

We have to consider:

  • the benefits that are being delivered and the investments that will fund them,
  • the quality of services we provide to members and sponsoring employers; and
  • how we balance the costs of running USS with achieving good outcomes
Working with Higher Education employers to build a secure financial future for our members and their families

We score well in each area

  • 1. Cost Efficiency

    We are consistently less expensive in total than our peer group*

    CEM Benchmarking (a leading independent benchmarking organisation) compares us to a peer group. In the latest available comparison (calendar year 2024), we were significantly less expensive in total than our peer group (£80m or 10bps). The substantial advantage in investment management more than offsets the higher pension administration/scheme governance cost.

    *Costs are presented on the CEM basis. Scheme costs reported in the Financial review and Value for Money section of the 31 March 2026 annual Report and Accounts are £302m.

  • 2. Member and employer service

    We scored 3rd highest for member service overall

    CEM scored us 3rd highest overall compared to our pension administration peer group in the latest survey and very close to the top two (our score was 78 out of 100, above the peer median of 65).

    We scored top for active members, with Annual Member Statement data being made available more quickly via our secure member portal and increased engagement through webinars and face-to-face meetings improving our score over time.

    We saw an improved pensioner score ranking up from 3rd to 2nd this year. We score higher than peers for website users and use, though some peers have greater digital functionality. We are implementing a new pensions platform, with a planned move from Capita’s Hartlink system to Procentia’s award-winning platform Intellipen. Once live, this will give members greater opportunity to self-serve, allowing them to take actions when they want and how they want.

  • 3. Investment and funding management

    DB and DC balanced scorecards rated Average to Good this year, which was on target

    We introduced the DB investment balanced scorecard in 2022, with the DC scorecard introduced in 2023. This allows the trustee to holistically assess USSIM’s investment and advisory performance.

    You can see how the Investment Committee assessed USSIM’s performance on our investment balanced scorecard pages.

    Learn more about the DB scorecard

    Learn more about the DC scorecard

Cost Efficiency

We are consistently less expensive in total than our peer group

We compare very favourably with peers. In the latest available comparison period (2024), our overall cost base was £80m p.a. (10 bps) lower than the combined peer benchmark, derived from separate investment management (investments) and pension administration (pensions) reports.

The scheme is significantly less expensive than peer schemes in relation to investments. This is by far the largest element of total costs. CEM takes into account the investment strategy we have implemented.

Our costs in supporting members and employers in all their interactions with the scheme are below our CEM peer group average even with our higher service score.

Our governance costs are higher than our peer group, reflecting the regulatory requirements of running a multi-employer, hybrid benefit scheme of USS’s size and complexity. The higher governance costs are small compared to our cost advantage on the investment side and our cost advantage in investments far outweighs the impact of the higher spend on pensions; around 84% of scheme costs on a CEM cost basis relate to the investment management of the scheme. The remaining 16% splits into the pension delivery costs of processing and support services for employers and members (6%) and governance and other costs (10%).

Investment costs are benchmarked against a global peer group, whilst pension costs are benchmarked against a UK peer group. CEM aims to provide like-for-like comparisons where possible e.g. through its selection of the peer group and taking account of economies of scale in pension costs and adjusting for different asset mixes.

Cost efficiency graphic one

The cost of managing our investment portfolio was £102m less than our peers would incur to manage a fund of our size

Our investment management costs in 2024 (the latest completed year of the CEM benchmarking survey), which make up around 84% of total benchmarked scheme costs, are significantly below the peer costs benchmark.

Costs of £240m in 2024 were £102m lower than the peer median (after scaling peer group costs to our fund size).

The relatively high proportion of our assets managed internally gives us a significant cost advantage over peers.

Cost efficiency graphic two

Pension costs are above the peer average driven by the nature of our scheme

Our total cost per member of £76 compares with a peer average of £43. We are less expensive than the peers' average in processing and support services, (£27 per member versus £30 for the average of our peers), and our multi-employer, hybrid benefit and governance structure results in governance and other costs which are notably above our peer average (£49 per member versus £13 for the average of our peers).

These governance and other costs include scheme governance, communications, projects (including actuarial valuations), risk & compliance and technical/quality costs.

These differences drive an incremental £33 a year per member or £22m total spend on pension costs compared to the peer average equivalent.

Cost efficiency graphic three
Member and employer service

Our total member score is very close to the top of our peer group and we score highest for active members

CEM assess each of the peer group for their member service offering.

We score third highest overall compared to our peer group and very close to the top two — our score was 78 out of 100, above the peer median of 65.

We scored top for active members, with Annual Member Statement data being available to members quicker via our secure member portal, more social media communications and more interaction with members via webinars and face-to-face meetings improving our score over time.

99.8% of USS retiring active member pension set‐ups were paid without an interruption in cashflow greater than one month vs a peer median of 81.6%.

99.8% of pension commencement lump sums were paid within one week of retirement for active members vs a peer median of 59%.

We scored highest in our peer group for digital access to our secure portal by active members with 74% of active members registered, above the peer median of 55%.

We scored highest in our peer group for telephone outcomes. We monitor call outcomes after a member connects. Only 73% of our peers do this.

The proportion of our calls that are abandoned in queue is 3.4% compared to a peer median of 5.9%.

Our pensioner score of 82 improved our ranking from 3rd in the previous year to 2nd this year. We score higher in some pensioner service assessment categories, including our scores for digital usage, newsletters and telephony. However, some peers have greater digital functionality for pensioner members, for example allowing them to change their bank account information online and interact via secure email.

Member and employer service graphic one

Service and Quality provided by Investment Builder (the DC element of the scheme) are compared to leading commercial Master Trusts

Redington (now Gallagher), an independent pensions consultancy, undertake an external benchmarking of the Investment Builder DC element.

A broad range of features are compared with leading Master Trusts, including administration, investment, ESG considerations, governance, communication, and services available to members at retirement.

Redington’s view is, overall, we rate ahead of those other Master Trusts, using agreed weightings.

Member and employer service graphic two

We score well in a global pensions transparency benchmark, with a rating of 77 compared with a UK average of 62

To ensure we inform stakeholders about how their scheme is managed, we provide updates including investment and cost performance via a range of published and face-to-face mechanisms. CEM and Top1000funds.com report that we provide a greater level of transparency of disclosures compared with a peer group of 75 pension funds from 15 countries. We received a transparency rating of 77, compared with a UK average of 62 and a global average of 65. The analysis considered performance, governance, cost, responsible investing, and integrated reporting disclosures.