As of May 9th, 35 insurance asset management institutions have disclosed their 2025 annual reports, excluding Sino-British Yili Asset Management and the newly established AIA Insurance Asset Management and Hequan Insurance Asset Management. Overall, the industry achieved double-digit growth in both revenue and net profit, but internal divergence intensified. Leading institutions strengthened their dominance, with the number of firms managing over one trillion yuan expanding to 11, while some small and medium-sized institutions faced pressure from declining revenue and profits.
The industry saw increases in both revenue and profit, with the "Matthew Effect" among top firms continuing to strengthen. In 2025, the 35 institutions collectively achieved operating revenue of 484.45 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 14.9%. Their combined net profit was 218.64 billion yuan, up 18.3% year-on-year. China Life Asset Management, Taikang Asset Management, and Ping An Asset Management remained the top three. These three companies together generated revenue of 211.83 billion yuan, accounting for 43.7% of the industry's total. Their combined net profit was nearly 120 billion yuan, representing about 55% of the industry's total. The top ten institutions by revenue had a combined income of 373.39 billion yuan, making up 77.1% of the industry. The top ten by net profit earned a total of 182.83 billion yuan, a staggering 83.6% share. This means approximately 80% of the profits are concentrated in less than one-third of the institutions.
Research reports indicate that the advantages in assets under management and management fee income enjoyed by the asset management platforms of leading insurers help increase group profits and enhance long-term capital allocation capabilities. In the view of industry insiders, the insurance asset management industry is transitioning from a stage reliant on licensing advantages and entrusted funds from parent companies to a new phase competing on investment capabilities, market-oriented fundraising, and asset creation abilities. The first-mover advantages of leading institutions in investment research, talent, and client resources are creating a virtuous cycle: larger scale attracts better talent; better investment performance attracts more third-party funds; and larger fund size further dilutes operating costs. Small and medium-sized institutions risk further marginalization if they cannot establish differentiated advantages in niche areas.
From a profitability perspective, 34 institutions were profitable, with only Prudential Insurance Asset Management (established in mid-2025, with a net loss of 33 million yuan during the operating period) reporting a loss. Twenty-two institutions achieved growth in both revenue and net profit, while eight saw year-on-year declines in both metrics.
The trillion-yuan club expanded, with third-party funds becoming a key differentiator. Public data shows that by the end of 2025, the insurance asset management industry had 11 institutions with assets under management exceeding one trillion yuan, an increase of three from the previous year.
The specific list includes the following 11 institutions: China Life Asset Management (over 7 trillion yuan), Ping An Asset Management (6.17 trillion yuan), Taikang Asset Management (over 4.8 trillion yuan), CPIC Asset Management, PICC Asset Management (1.98 trillion yuan), New China Asset Management (close to 2 trillion yuan), Taiping Asset Management (over 1.5 trillion yuan), Changjiang Pension (over 1.53 trillion yuan), Huaxia Jiuying Asset Management (over 1.3 trillion yuan), Huatai Asset Management (surpassing 1 trillion yuan), and Dajia Asset Management (1.03 trillion yuan). The new entrants include Huaxia Jiuying Asset Management, Huatai Asset Management, and Dajia Asset Management.
Research reports show that by the end of 2025, the balance of insurance fund utilization reached 38.5 trillion yuan, a 15.7% increase from the beginning of the year, marking the highest growth rate since 2021. Notably, the growth of third-party funds is becoming a crucial variable in the differentiated competition among leading institutions. By the end of 2024, 34 insurance asset management institutions managed nearly 10 trillion yuan in third-party funds. As the industry gradually breaks away from the path dependency of "relying on entrusted funds from parent companies," the ability to expand third-party business has become a core metric for measuring an institution's market competitiveness.
Small and medium-sized institutions are under pressure, with eight seeing double declines, highlighting the intensifying divergence. Against the backdrop of overall industry growth, eight institutions experienced declines in both revenue and net profit: China Life Investment, New China Asset Management, Huaxia Jiuying Asset Management, CMB-CIGNA Asset Management, PICC Capital, Hua'an Asset Management, Hezhong Asset Management, and Great Wall Wealth Insurance Asset Management. Among them, Hezhong Asset Management saw revenue drop by 13.3%, Hua'an Asset Management by 12.3%, and Huaxia Jiuying Asset Management by 11.7%. In terms of net profit decline, Hua'an Asset Management fell by 51.0%, China Life Investment by 32.8%, and Hezhong Asset Management by 32.5%.
The divergence stems from disparities in investment capabilities. In a low-interest-rate environment, with the yield center of various assets continuously declining and coupled with structural differentiation in the equity market, higher demands are placed on the asset allocation and risk management capabilities of asset managers. Leading institutions, leveraging their multi-asset allocation systems and stronger investment research teams, can achieve excess returns across fixed income, equities, and alternative assets. In contrast, some small and medium-sized institutions, with relatively weaker investment research personnel allocation and risk control system development, experience significantly amplified performance volatility.
Simultaneously, the top performers in growth were also notable. Changjiang Pension led with a 67.8% increase in revenue, while its net profit surged 212.2% during the same period. China Re Asset Management saw revenue grow by 41.3%, Sunshine Asset Management and China Post & Capital Asset Management both grew by 28.2%, Taikang Asset Management grew by 26.2%, Ping An Asset Management by 23.8%, and China Life Asset Management by 23.1%.
Regarding Return on Equity (ROE), the average for the 35 institutions was 18.5%, with 12 institutions exceeding 20%. Minsheng Tonghui Asset Management topped the list at 64.2%, followed by Sunshine Asset Management at 49.7%, Taikang Asset Management at 37.7%, and Ping An Asset Management at 28.6%. The wide disparity in ROE also confirms the polarization in the ability of different institutions to generate returns using their own capital.
Research reports point out that insurance fund asset allocation is fundamentally based on bonds, with the proportion of equity allocations gradually increasing in recent years. In 2024 and 2025, capital gains and fair value change gains performed well, leading to a significant improvement in overall investment returns. The reports forecast an incremental 4.86 trillion yuan in insurance fund utilization balance for 2026, comprising a 3.11 trillion yuan increase in bond allocations and a 9633 billion yuan increase in stock allocations. Against the backdrop of a continuously declining bond yield center, the coupon income from fixed-income assets can no longer cover liability costs, further highlighting the allocation value of equity assets.
Relevant experts note that the insurance asset management industry is transitioning from the era of "licensing advantages" to the era of "capability advantages." Future competition will no longer be about how much funding a parent company entrusts, but about the ability to genuinely create sustainable excess returns for clients. Many industry insiders believe that in a low-interest-rate environment, the moats built by leading institutions through brand, talent, fund scale, and investment research capabilities will widen further. Conversely, small and medium-sized institutions that fail to find differentiated breakthroughs will become increasingly passive in the competition.