Best Swiss Asset Managers: Rating Criteria Explained

Anyone searching for the “best Swiss asset manager” rarely wants a single name. Usually a different question sits behind the search: how do you tell whether an award actually means something? This article answers that question step by step, then closes with one concrete example.

What a rating actually measures

Ratings such as firstfive’s, the basis on which the business magazine BILANZ names Switzerland’s best asset managers, compare real client portfolios on a single data basis. Participating asset managers report their portfolios, and firstfive scores them on return, risk, and the Sharpe ratio, the relationship between the two. What gets rated is live client business, not a model portfolio built under laboratory conditions.

That is the first filter a credible rating has to pass: one consistent data basis across several providers, not self-reported single figures. An asset manager who shows off only their best strategy says little about their overall client business. A rating that compares real portfolios says considerably more.

Costs belong in a complete picture too. A high gross return with high fees can end up below a lower gross return with low fees, once fees are deducted. Anyone reading a rating should ask whether the published figure is stated before or after costs.

Why the time period changes what a result means

BILANZ and firstfive grant awards for different time periods: twelve months, 24 months, 36 months, in some cases up to 60 months. That is not a side detail; it changes the question being answered.

A twelve-month winner responded best during one particular market phase. That is a real achievement, but a snapshot. A 36 or 60-month winner has been through several market cycles and stayed consistently strong throughout, which is a different claim, and usually a more reliable one. Reading the two categories side by side without checking the period means comparing two different things as if they were one.

For your own review, that means always reading the evaluation period an award covers, not just the rank.

Risk classes are not a shared scale

firstfive scores strategies within risk classes, typically four levels from conservative to dynamic. A comparison makes sense within one class, because every participant has taken on a similar level of risk. Across classes, the comparison falls apart: a dynamic strategy with a high equity weighting will almost inevitably post a higher return in a good stock market year than a conservative strategy designed to avoid exactly that. That does not make the dynamic strategy the better choice, only a different one.

Anyone reading a rating should therefore know the risk class of the awarded portfolio and weigh it against their own risk capacity and risk appetite, rather than comparing return figures across classes.

An award and a ranking position are two different things

The distinction most readers miss: an award such as “Wealth Manager of the Year” is a title granted for a specific year and category, issued with a certificate. A ranking position is a rank within an ongoing list that gets recalculated several times a year. Firms sitting at the top of an interim ranking do not automatically hold an award because of it. Conversely, an award granted for a given year stands, even if a later interim ranking shows different figures.

For your own assessment: a named title with a year, category and period carries more weight than an unattributed claim of “ranked first” without those details.

What a rating never captures

A rating assesses the return and risk of a past period. Four points sit entirely outside that and can be checked independently.

The FINMA licence is the first. Anyone managing assets professionally in Switzerland has needed a FINMA licence as an independent asset manager and affiliation with a recognised Supervisory Organisation since 2020. That is verifiable in the public FINMA licence register, regardless of whether a provider has ever won a rating.

No ranking shows the fee structure. A flat management fee, a performance-based component, entry charges on individual products: this structure determines how much of the published return actually reaches the client.

Then there is the custodian bank and safekeeping. An asset manager makes the investment decisions, but the assets themselves sit with a separate custodian bank. Where exactly that account is held and how safekeeping is organised belongs in the review; a rating says nothing about it.

And finally, independence from product providers. A provider that distributes its own funds or products has an incentive to overweight them in the portfolio. A provider without such ties selects investments purely on their fit for the mandate.

Where Everon stands in this rating

Everon has appeared in the firstfive comparison every year since 2020 and has been recognised by BILANZ in each of those years, in changing categories: as winner of “Wealth Manager of the Year”, with top-return awards in individual risk classes, and with second-place finishes. The individual years, categories and evidence are listed on the awards page. That is an example of how the criteria described above play out in practice, not a substitute for checking the four points from the previous section yourself.

More on how to place multi-family offices and independent asset managers in Switzerland is in the Multi-Family Office & Wealth Succession knowledge hub.

Frequently asked questions about asset manager ratings

What exactly does an asset manager rating such as firstfive’s measure?

firstfive compares the real portfolios of participating asset managers on a single, uniform data basis: return, risk, and the Sharpe ratio as the relationship between the two. It rates portfolios from live client business, not model portfolios or backtests.

Why do the awards differ by time period?

A ranking over 12 months shows who responded best during a specific market phase. A ranking over 36 or 60 months shows who stayed consistent across several market cycles. Both are meaningful, but they answer different questions. A provider leading over twelve months does not have to hold the same position over five years.

What is the difference between an award and a ranking position?

An award such as “Wealth Manager of the Year” is a title granted for a specific year and category. A ranking position is a rank within an ongoing list that is recalculated several times a year. A provider can hold a strong position in several rankings at once without that becoming a granted award.

Is a good rating enough to choose an asset manager?

No. A rating assesses the return and risk of a past period. It says nothing about the FINMA licence, the fee structure, the custodian bank, or independence from product providers. These four points can be checked independently of the rating, for instance in the public FINMA register.

Schedule a conversation if you would like to work through these criteria for your own case.