The debate over whether property or pensions are a better option is being approached from a new angle by the next generation of retirees
But what happens to returns when the numbers are crunched? Do property or pensions win out?
Purchasing a home or investing in a pension are regarded as wise long-term plans to increase your retirement income. Yet which is superior?
In the debate between buy-to-let and pension properties, what was once a simple either-or choice for older generations is now more of a bit of both for the next generation of retirees who are looking for ways to increase their pension while simultaneously attempting to climb the property ladder due to rising home prices.
According to Standard Life research, the majority of Gen Z (62%) and Millennials (56%) view a combination of property and pensions as their primary retirement assets. This is a generational shift: 40 percent of Baby Boomers are most likely to rely solely on pensions, whether they are defined benefit, defined contribution, or a combination of both. The only generation that favors real estate is Gen X (38 percent).
According to Mike Ambery, retirement savings director at Standard Life, a division of Phoenix Group, younger generations appear to be approaching retirement with greater flexibility, viewing both property and pensions as essential components of their financial future.
Building a well-rounded plan that covers as many bases as possible is a wise move. Pensions provide employer contributions and tax benefits, but real estate offers long-term stability andmost importantlya place to live.
Pensions to support retirement.
The study, which polled 6,000 people, revealed that pensionsincluding Sipps and workplace pensionsremain an essential component of retirement savings. A third (34 percent) of Gen Z and a quarter (26 percent) of Millennials anticipate pensions to be their primary retirement asset.
Only 4% of Gen Zers and 15% of Millennials anticipate that their primary source of retirement income will come from real estate. In contrast, 33% of Baby Boomers and 38% of Gen Xers look to real estate as their primary source of retirement income.
The fact that fewer younger people believe that property alone can sustain them in retirement may not come as a surprise. With a third (33 percent) of Millennials and more than half (56 percent) of Gen Z currently renting or living with family, younger generations face considerable obstacles when trying to climb the property ladder given the current housing and mortgage markets.
Standard Life is the source.
As the cost of retirement rises and the amount of our state pension is uncertain, it is becoming more and more clear that working-age Britons will need to do more with their pension in order to prepare for their financial future. Even today, more retirees are needing to think about taking part-time jobs to supplement their income.
To make sure you can afford a comfortable retirement, you can invest in your own pension fund and take advantage of company programs. Recent studies, however, have revealed that people are currently struggling with pension funds that are lower than expected.
In the meantime, buying real estate, typically through buy-to-let properties, has been viewed as a surefire method of producing a sufficient income for retirement. Recent years have also seen difficulties for this strategy due to rising mortgage rates, stagnant home prices, and the Autumn Budget's increase in the stamp duty rate for additional properties from 3% to 5%.
When the numbers are crunched, however, which approachproperty or pensionswins out?
Pension versus. The property gap has grown.
A 50,000 pension fund and a 50,000 property investment fund were taken by wealth manager Netwealth in order to determine which retirement plan would yield the highest profits. The average financial returns of the two over a 20-year span were then compared.
The tax bills and other expenses an investor would anticipate incurring over time were applied to figure these out (assuming 2024 rates continued for the next two decades). Additionally, it assumed that the two distinct strategies would be applied with typical property values and annual growth rates from 2023.
It discovered that, on average, the property investment increased to 83,000, a difference of 64,000, while the pension pot grew to 147,000. Accordingly, an investment in a pension offered a 77 percent higher return than one in real estate, which is an increase from the 38 percent that Netwealth found in its earlier study.
One of the main reasons why pensions outperformed real estate was the flexibility and tax benefits they offered. The initial investment of £50,000 would have received nearly 16,700 in tax relief right away. The pot would reach nearly 150,000 by the end of the 20-year horizon if it grew by 5% a year.
Taxes, fees, and maintenance were all drawbacks for the property. The cost of stamp duty and purchase fees (including solicitor and surveying costs), followed by mortgage interest, capital gains tax, and the general costs of renting a home (such as maintenance and letting agent fees), would all slow down the investment, assuming a buy-to-let property was purchased for slightly less than 170,000 with a 25% deposit (a typical amount, according toNetwealths analysis).
To make matters worse for real estate investors, the investment's value would drop from £50,000 to £7,225 if, for example, there was a base of 0% capital growth over the course of the two-decade period. Actually, if there was no capital growth over the course of 20 years, the gross rental yield that a buy-to-let could generate would be completely destroyed by the costs of buying, selling, and renting out the property.
Despite recent interest rate reductions, high buy-to-let mortgage rates and additional stamp duty charges have made the situation even more dire.
Moneyfacts reports that as of August 19, 2025, the average rate on a buy-to-let mortgage for a two-year fix is 4.90 percent, increasing to 5.22 percent for five years. However, this represents a decrease from November 2024's 5point 34 and 5point 47 percent, respectively.
In recent years, housing has become less affordable and appealing as an investment due to declining returns and reductions in tax relief for landlords, despite the British love affair with real estate making it a popular asset, according to Charlotte Ransom, CEO of Netwealth.
An investment in pensions is'more worthwhile'.
Buy-to-let isn't as beneficial as it once was for financing retirement, according to analysts.
"It may no longer make sense to rely solely on buy-to-let property to fund your retirement given the changing rules for investment property, from tax to regulations, and the potential drawbacks and hands-on nature of buy-to-let property," comments Carina Chambers, Moneyfarm's pensions technical expert.
According to Chambers, tax-efficient products like ISAs and pensions might be a better option for long-term financial planning and goal-achieving.
According to Ransom, pensions are demonstrating themselves to be a more valuable, dependable, and manageable substitute for real estate.
She continues: "The elimination of the lifetime allowance gives savers the opportunity to increase their pension contributions without paying taxes if they exceed the previous cap, which only serves to strengthen the case for higher pension contributions.
Making proactive decisions about the investments of your pension and retirement funds is crucial to maximizing your retirement savings and ensuring that you are exposed to suitable returns that will meet your needs in retirement.
According to her, property is not likely to make a substantial contribution to pensions "in the short to medium term." According to Ransom, investors find pensions to be a "truly compelling" and "worthwhile" option because of the tax benefits they offer.
The fact that pensions will no longer be exempt from inheritance tax starting in April 2027 is one factor that might cause you to think about investing in buy-to-let real estate.
Leave a comment on: When it comes to retirement income, which is better, a pension or real estate?