New research suggests that self-managed super funds are giving retail and industry funds a run for their money in terms of fees and returns.

Joint research by the SMSF Association and Rice Warner found SMSFs with $200,000 or more are cost competitive with both industry and retail super funds. Balances of $500,000 or more are generally the cheapest alternative.

The research puts to rest the argument that SMSFs are not competitive on costs compared to APRA-regulated super funds, SMSFA chief executive John Maroney said.

The reduction in fees in SMSFs and retail funds while the increase in fees for industry funds since the inaugural 2013 report has changed the relative competitiveness of SMSFs in comparison to the APRA-regulated funds, he said.

"This is welcome news for the SMSF sector as the cost of running SMSFs especially those funds with balances below $500,000 has been used as a key factor as to whether an SMSF is viable or not. This report should bring that false analysis to an end," Maroney said.

However, SMSFs with less than $100,000 are not competitive in comparison to APRA-regulated funds.

Additionally, the SMSF sector has delivered equivalent returns to retail and industry funds since 2005.

In 2017, APRA-regulated funds delivered 9.1% p.a. while SMSFs returned 10.2% per year. In 2018, returns were 8.5% p.a. and 7.5% p.a. respectively.

"These results may not support the proposition that SMSFs are better investment managers than APRA-regulated funds, but they do indicate that members of SMSFs, in aggregate, are not disadvantaged when compared to APRA regulated funds," the research found.

As at FY20, over 21,300 SMSFs were established while 2763 closed. There were 593,375 SMSFs with over 1.1 members.