Despite the prevalence of tariffs, war and economic plus political uncertainty, the domestic equity market rose to new heights in 2025. But there can be a disconnect between headline market results and underlying fundamentals — a reality that popped up in this year’s Brokerage Report Card, if you consider advisor business metrics.
According to data in the latest Investment Executive Report Card, average assets under management (AUM) for the investment dealer industry was up heading into 2026. Our topline statistics also found advisor productivity improved overall: average AUM for the advisors we surveyed this year was $310 million, compared with $301.3 million on average in the 2025 report (reflecting business metrics as of Dec. 31, 2024). For the same period, AUM per client household was approximately $1.8 million on average, a rise from just under $1.7 million.
Still, while overall industry assets increased, that growth in average AUM was far slower than the gains posted by equity markets in 2025. In calendar 2025, the S&P/TSX Composite Index gained about 28.2%, outpacing strong increases in the Nikkei 225 (about 26.2%), the FTSE 100 (21.5%) and the Nasdaq Composite Index (20.4%).
The fact that industry asset growth trailed equity market gains suggests activity beneath the surface, including shifts in asset allocation and change in the composition of the average investment advisor’s book.
For one thing, the modest increase in average AUM for the industry overall obscures the fact that the industry’s gains within our report (measured as of Dec. 31, 2025) weren’t uniform. It was the top-performing advisors (the top 20%) who generated some growth.
For that top 20% — as measured by AUM per client household — average AUM was up 5.5% coming into 2026 and compared with our 2025 report. That group’s average AUM rose to $637.6 million from $604.6 million in last year’s survey. In comparison, for the remaining 80% of advisors polled, average AUM was almost unchanged year-over-year, inching up to $227.8 million from $226.8 million.
Click the image below to view the data and enlarge it.
Top 20% focusing on high-net-worth segment
This divergent growth experience was also reflected in the composition of advisor books, also measured as of Dec. 31, 2025. For the top 20%, the average book was still devoted mainly to clients with more than $2 million in assets. Already, these advisors had more than half of their books dedicated to the largest client accounts, and that share continues to grow (now at 54.2%).
The top 20%’s average advisor had another 24.4% of their book allocated to clients with between $1 million and $2 million in assets, meaning that more than three quarters of their book (78.6%) comprised wealthy clients.
For the remaining 80%, the picture is different: less than half of that group’s average book includes client accounts worth more than $1 million — that metric was 44.4%, down marginally from 44.7% in last year’s report. At the same time, for this group’s average advisor, their share of client accounts worth up to $250,000 increased to 17.7% in this year’s survey, from 16.5%.
This could indicate greater reliance on smaller client accounts for this segment of the industry, or it could point to them more actively involving clients’ extended family members who are still asset gatherers.
Their lower weight in high-value accounts could also reflect attrition among larger accounts, given their average client number was also down compared with 2025 (201 from 209). Overall, based on these shifts for the remaining 80% of advisors, average AUM per client household rose to $1.18 million in this report, from $1.13 million.
The top 20% group also reported increased productivity, but their gains were larger — reflecting rising assets rather than declining client household numbers. For that group’s average advisor, AUM per client household rose almost 10%, from $3.9 million in last year’s report to $4.3 million this year.
So, not only did the top-producing group post a much larger nominal gain, but their average AUM per client household rose about $400,000 —versus just $50,000 for the remaining 80%.
Stock picking vs. fund-focused
There were also notable differences in the types of products preferred by the two industry segments. For the top-producing advisors, a large chunk of their revenue came from individual equities at 45.4% this year, from 44.8% a year ago. At the same time, their share of revenue from mutual funds and ETFs both declined. In total, their average allocation to mutual funds and ETFs dropped to 25.8% from 30.9%.
That top group’s allocation to alternatives (including liquid alts and again as a share of revenue) declined to 5.2% this year from 6.1% last year. Their average exposure to “other” assets, including precious metals, private equity, private credit and separately managed accounts, jumped to 6.7% from 1.3% in last year’s report. This sharp rise in revenue gained from the use of “other” assets by the top 20% may reflect the unusual economic and financial environment.
For the rest of the industry, revenue gained from the “other” asset category was unchanged at 3%, and their earnings from alternatives edged up to 3.9%. In contrast with the industry’s top performers, the remaining 80% group saw greater earnings from mutual funds and ETFs, with share of revenue in that area climbing to 40.4% this year from 38.1% in last year’s report.
Advisor pay similarities
The one area where both groups were on the same page was pay structure. Increasingly, the industry’s revenues are tied to asset-based fee compensation.
For the industry overall, the share of advisors’ revenues generated by asset-based fee compensation was higher than 80%, up from 76.8% in last year’s report. That appeared to be driven by an increase in discretionary fees, which accounted for 52.3% as of Dec. 31, 2025 (from 46% a year ago). At the same time, the share of revenue generated by transactional business and fees for services continued to decline.
The same trends were evident for the top 20% and the remaining 80% groups.
For the industry’s top performers, their share of revenue from asset-based sources was 86.8%, up from 80.1%. The share generated by discretionary fees rose to 67.2% from 55.6%. Non-discretionary fees accounted for 19.6%, down from 24.5%.
For the rest of the sample, reliance on asset-based fees remained lower. But in total, asset-based revenue streams accounted for 79.7% of their earnings from 75.3%. For them, discretionary fees accounted for 49.1% from 42.4%, while non-discretionary fees contributed 30.6% from 33%.
Looking at how much advisors brought home at the end of the day, also measured as of Dec. 31, 2025 and after business expenses, there was a slight shift. The proportion of advisors making top dollar — those making more than $2 million a year — remained the same as in the 2025 report.
There was an increase in the share of advisors making between $500,000 and $2 million. More than half of those sampled (57%) reported take-home pay in that range, up a bit from 53.9% a year ago.
At the same time, the share of advisors who reported making between $250,000 and $500,000 dropped to 16.6% from 20.4%. Many of the advisors exiting this category may have climbed into a higher bracket, yet there was also a small increase in the share of advisors reporting take-home pay between $100,000 and $250,000 (up to 12.3% from 11.6%).
Generally, from a client, product and pay perspective, advisors had mixed experiences coming into 2026 and across the brokerage, investment dealer space. That’s unsurprising given the current economic landscape.