Reviewing more than 200 fund factsheets, and analysing the Top 15 in detail, makes one thing very clear: the firms that made it into the Top 10 Fund Factsheets of 2025 didn’t succeed by chance. 

The differences were rarely dramatic. In most cases, they were incremental, but consistent. Small advantages, applied well, compounded to increase the overall score. And when scores were close, these details were often the deciding factor. 

So, what did the Top 10 do differently? 

1. They treated usability as a discipline, not an afterthought

Across the Top 15 factsheets, Layout & Usability averaged just 6.9 (out of 10), a relatively low score even among strong performers. This tells us something important: usability is still the weakest link in fund factsheet production. 

The Top 10 didn’t necessarily have the most complex layouts or the most content. What they did have was intentional structure. Pages flowed logically and information was prioritised clearly. The reader was guided through the document rather than left to work it out. 

In contrast, many non-Top-10 factsheets suffered from: 

• Dense page layouts 

• Overcrowded tables 

• Inconsistent section ordering 

• Content that expanded without the layout adapting to it 

The Top 10 showed that good usability isn’t about adding more, it’s about organising better. 

2. They made risk information visible, not just compliant

One of the most telling findings from the Top 15 analysis was that Risk Disclosure scored lowest of all judging sub- categories, at just 6.6. 

That matters, because clear, prominent risk disclosure is a regulatory requirement under FCA rules. But beyond compliance, it’s also a trust signal for investors. The Top 10 factsheets understood this. 

Rather than burying risk information in dense text blocks or relegating it to the bottom of the page, the strongest factsheets: 

• Positioned risk content logically within the document 

• Used clear language rather than generic legal phrasing 

• Ensured risk sections were easy to find and easy to read 

Many of the factsheets that missed out on the Top 10 technically included risk information, but failed to present it effectively. That distinction proved critical. 

3. They balanced content richness with control

There is a clear trend towards more content in modern factsheets: more breakdowns, more attribution, more ESG data, more explanation. This was evident across the Top 15. 

What separated the Top 10 was not restraint, but control. 

The strongest factsheets expanded their content without overwhelming the page. Tables were supported, or replaced, by charts. Long explanations were broken into digestible sections or bullet points. ESG content was integrated thoughtfully rather than bolted on. 

Where others struggled, it was often because templates failed to respond to content growth. The result: cramped layouts, visual fatigue and declining usability, even when the underlying data was strong. 

4. They benefited from stronger underlying workflows 

While this review focused on the output, the fingerprints of internal process were visible throughout. 

The Top 10 factsheets showed fewer signs of: 

• Manual formatting fixes 

• Content overflow 

• Misaligned charts or tables 

• Inconsistent presentation across sections 

These are usually symptoms of inflexible templates and manual production workflows. Their absence suggests something different: structured processes, cleaner data flows and greater automation. 

In contrast, many non-Top-10 factsheets showed small but telling artefacts that hinted at production strain, issues likely to arise from multiple rounds of manual checking. 

5. They understood that “good design” is par for the course 

Design scored well across the Top 15, with an average of 8.6. In other words, most firms are doing design reasonably well, which means design alone is no longer a differentiator. 

The Top 10 stood out because they moved beyond aesthetics and focused on how the factsheet actually works for the reader. Layout decisions, information hierarchy and usability carried more weight than colour palettes or visual flair. 

Overall: from looking good to working well 

The clearest lesson from the Top 10 is this that the next phase of best practice in fund factsheets is not about looking better, it’s about working better. 

The firms that made the Top 10 demonstrated: 

• Strong usability despite increasing complexity 

• Clear and visible risk disclosure (though there is plenty of room for improvement in this area) 

• Controlled content growth 

• Evidence of scalable, automated workflows 

For the wider industry, the message is constructive rather than critical. The gap between “good” and “Top 10” is narrow, but it sits squarely in layout discipline, usability and process maturity. 

Perhaps not surprisingly, these areas are more challenging to get right (and less ‘fun’!) than applying brand guidelines and colour palettes. But those who focus on the slightly more mundane areas of fund factsheet production and layout will find themselves closing the gap to the best quickest.