国内公募基金首次在季报中披露七年和十年的长期净值增长率[1]。这一新举措让投资者得以看清权益类基金的真实成绩单，结果却呈现出截然不同的两个世界。
2293只权益类基金在过去七年的平均净值增长达146%，远超同期业绩比较基准平均36%的涨幅，超额收益达110个百分点[1]。但这个行业均值掩盖了业绩分布的极度不均。其中1118只基金实现了七年收益翻倍，占比接近五成，而十年期间收益为负的基金仅41只[1]。然而，最优秀者与最差者之间的差距触目惊心：七年收益率从最高的1170%跌至最低的-56%，十年收益率则从1432%降至-42%[1]。
业绩表现的分化背后反映了基金公司和基金经理的实力差异。华商优势行业A凭借十年1432%和七年1170%的收益率在两个榜单中均排名第一[1]。金梓才管理的财通价值动量基金任职以来回报率超过1300%，年化收益超过25%[1]。值得注意的是，这些长期业绩最优的基金中，仅一只基金规模超过200亿元，即财通成长优选A约208亿元[1]。相比之下，表现不佳的基金中，前海开源一带一路A十年间跑输基准超过100个百分点，而长安鑫禧A七年收益率约-56%[1]。
China's public mutual funds disclosed their seven-year and ten-year performance metrics for the first time in quarterly reports released on July 31, 2026, revealing stark disparities in investor returns.[1] Among 2,293 equity funds, the average net value growth over seven years reached 146%, significantly outpacing the benchmark's 36% gain by 110 percentage points.[1] Nearly half of these funds—1,118 in total—more than doubled their value over the seven-year period, while only 41 funds posted negative returns over the full decade.[1]
The performance spread proved extreme: the top-performing fund posted a seven-year return of 1,170% and a ten-year return of 1,432%, while the worst performers fell 56% and 42% respectively over the same periods.[1] Huashang Advantaged Industries A led both seven-year and ten-year rankings with 1,170% and 1,432% returns respectively.[1] Among the highest-performing funds, only one managed assets exceeding 20 billion yuan—Caaitong Growth Preferred A with approximately 20.8 billion yuan under management.[1] Jin Zicai, the fund manager of Caaitong Value Momentum, delivered cumulative returns exceeding 1,300% with annualized returns surpassing 25%.[1] Conversely, Changan Xinxi A posted a seven-year loss of approximately 56%, while Taiping Flexible Allocation suffered a ten-year decline of 42%.[1]
Analysis of long-term performers identified consistent attributes: stable fund managers, clear investment frameworks, and platform-based research capabilities.[1] Underperforming funds, by contrast, were predominantly affiliated with smaller companies, experienced frequent management changes, maintained minimal asset bases, and frequently shifted their investment strategies.[1]
