Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) would win in the 2025 contest for cost efficiency because they have a lower expense ratio and have more tax efficiency. However, mutual funds, especially the passive index funds, have become quite competitive concerning costs. From there, the most cost-efficient option depends on the investor’s behavior and needs.
Which is efficient for you?
If any implicit costs, such as trading behavior and tax impacts, blend with explicit ones, then one truly has cost efficiency.
Cost-minded investor, hands-on investor, someone who already has a demat and trading account and will buy and hold for the long term and wants real-time price control—then choose ETFs. The very low expense ratio and tax efficiency score against mutual funds for a long time.
Mutual funds are enough just for a hands-off automated Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) approach for investing, avoiding the costs of having a demat account while accepting that one may have to pay a little more for ease of use and professional management.
Investors often find an effective blend in using both: keeping a stable base with low-cost ETFs and then, selectively, adding on high-quality actively managed mutual funds targeting alpha in less efficient markets like small caps.
Why ETFs Cost Less
Lower Expense Ratios
ETFs generally have lower ongoing fees than mutual funds. For example, in a recent comparison, the average ETF expense ratio for index-to-active funds was about 0.48% versus 0.69%, while mutual funds averaged about 0.60% for indexes against 0.89% for active funds. Another source mentions a median expense ratio of 0.56% for ETFs and 0.90% for those located within mutual funds.
Structural Efficiency
ETFs avoid some of the internal costs that mutual funds carry, such as 12b-1 marketing fees, loads, and certain redemption costs.
In addition, the creation/redemption process that many ETFs use helps reduce tax events and hidden costs.
When mutual funds might still be logical
- Automatic Investing/Dollar Cost Averaging: Fixed dollar investments (even through fractional shares) at no charge for trades are a major feature for mutual funds, so if you’re doing monthly contributions, it makes sense.
- Retirement/plan access: Many employer plans still use mutual funds and limit the number of options for investing in an ETF, giving the breadth advantage to mutual funds.
- Active Management: Unique actively managed mutual funds have strategies that are difficult to replicate with ETFs. Of course, you would pay for active management.
Putting it all together for 2025
For the typical, long-term investor looking for low-cost, diversified, broad-market exposure, ETFs are usually going to be the more cost-efficient option in 2025, as they have lower expense ratios, plus tax advantages, and overall structural cost benefits.
The more important understanding is that cost efficiency does not always translate into better.
Your situation matters: if you’re making small monthly investments and prefer simplicity or are constrained by your plan’s options, mutual funds might still make sense, as long as you choose low-cost index funds and avoid high-fee active funds.
Final takeaway
For many investors in 2025, ETFs win the cost race.
However, mutual funds are still relevant where the flexibility of trading is not so much of a concern or where automatic investment features play a role.
Compare the expense ratio, trading costs, tax consequences + your pattern in investments. Choose the wrapper that aligns with your strategy, not just the wrapper itself.
 would win in the 2025 contest for cost efficiency because they have a lower expense ratio and have more tax efficiency.){kind=link}