Retirement Pensions Minister Jane Hume said the online resource, which launched in July, held super-funds to account and named and dishonored underachievers.

“Australians work hard for their wages, and of course the retirement pension is deferred wages… We will always put Australians first, not fund managers,” said Senator Hume.

Thirteen MySuper products failed the government’s new performance test, covering one million member accounts.

The MySuper comparison tool allows people to compare their super fund with other default products on an apple-to-apple basis.

“The fees you pay today can be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in difference in retirement,” said Senator Hume.

“As Einstein observed, compound interest is one of the most powerful forces in the universe – a small change in your super today can pay off very lucrative many years later.”

The online tool shows that for a 30-year-old who owns $ 70,000 in super, there are nine funds that are “underperforming” based on information provided by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.

One of them was Maritime Super, which charged $ 1,010 per year, according to the website, while still giving a person a net return of 7.13% over seven years.

Energy Industries Superannuation Scheme was also classified as underperforming, charging $ 623 with a net return of just 5.96 percent.

Meanwhile, in contrast, the “performing” Unisuper account was charging an annual fee of $ 418 and had a net return of 9.17% over seven years.

Australian Super charged $ 586 but had a net return of 9.41%.

Xavier O’Halloran, director of Super Consumers Australia at CHOICE, said the new tool was making a “big difference”, describing it as a game changer.

“This is the first time that the Australians have been able to have a good idea in one place of the performance of their super,” he told NCA NewsWire.

“If you look at the funds that have underperformed, our analysis showed that there were more than double the number of people who left them compared to previous years.

“The differences (if you pay attention) are huge.”

He pointed to an estimate from the Productivity Commission that there could be a difference of $ 660,000 between a worker from a bottom quartile fund and an identical worker from a high performing fund.

His advice was to enter your personal situation and age and then check whether the fund was rated as performing or underperforming on the website.

“So see if the fund has failed the performance test or not, then look at the charges once you’ve entered your actual balance into the tool,” he said.

“Then I would watch the performance last. “

Mr O’Halloran said getting more people to use the tool would be a major goal for 2022.

“By ensuring that people come in and use the available tool, it will be worth looking into to see if enough people are directed to this tool and know it,” he said.