Key Takeaways
- • PFRDA's revised framework, effective December 1, 2026, standardises how National Pension System (NPS) schemes under the Multiple Scheme Framework (MSF) are named and displayed across platforms.
- • Subscribers will select a scheme category or risk profile first, and Points of Presence (PoPs) must display schemes from all pension funds within that category rather than hiding competing offerings.
- • Category codes A to E will not form part of scheme names, and each scheme offered by a single pension fund within the same category must carry a distinct name.
- • The exception applies only when a subscriber onboards directly through a pension fund's own website or app, where the fund may show only its own schemes.
- • Comparison criteria highlighted include objective and risk profile, historical performance, fund manager track record, AUM, and asset allocation across equity, corporate bonds and government securities.
Summary
The Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) will introduce a revised framework from December 1, 2026 aimed at making National Pension System (NPS) schemes easier to compare. According to the report, the framework standardises scheme naming and platform display rules for schemes offered under the Multiple Scheme Framework (MSF), bringing NPS closer to the standardised scheme classification and naming system used by the mutual fund industry.
The central change is a shift from fund-first to category-first selection. Investors will first choose a scheme type, category or risk profile, and the platform will then display all schemes in that category from different pension funds. The article uses Balanced Growth - Medium Risk as an example, where platforms must show schemes from every pension fund operating in that category to allow a like-for-like comparison.
Once schemes are displayed together, the article outlines four comparison criteria. Investors should first check the investment objective and risk profile, which the framework requires to be clearly shown alongside scheme names. They should then review long-term historical performance within the category, along with the track record of fund managers such as SBI Pension Funds, LIC Pension Fund, UTI Retirement Solutions, HDFC Pension Management, ICICI Prudential Pension Funds and Kotak Mahindra Pension Fund. Assets under management offer insight into scheme scale and acceptance, though the article cautions that size alone should not drive the decision. Asset allocation across equity, corporate bonds and government securities is also relevant within similar risk categories.
On naming, PFRDA has prescribed a uniform structure for MSF scheme names with standardised elements. The regulator has clarified that category codes A to E will not be part of the scheme name, and where a pension fund runs more than one scheme in the same category, each must have a distinct name.
Points of Presence operating their own platforms, including banks and brokerages, must display schemes from all pension funds in the selected category. A PoP may feature a particular fund's schemes at the top or pre-select one, but it cannot hide competing schemes in the same category. The exception applies when a subscriber directly uses a pension fund's own website or app and that fund manages onboarding; in that case, only its own schemes may be shown.
Taken together, the framework creates a standard comparison window for NPS subscribers, allowing investors to compare offerings across multiple fund managers within each category before investing.
The central change is a shift from fund-first to category-first selection. Investors will first choose a scheme type, category or risk profile, and the platform will then display all schemes in that category from different pension funds. The article uses Balanced Growth - Medium Risk as an example, where platforms must show schemes from every pension fund operating in that category to allow a like-for-like comparison.
Once schemes are displayed together, the article outlines four comparison criteria. Investors should first check the investment objective and risk profile, which the framework requires to be clearly shown alongside scheme names. They should then review long-term historical performance within the category, along with the track record of fund managers such as SBI Pension Funds, LIC Pension Fund, UTI Retirement Solutions, HDFC Pension Management, ICICI Prudential Pension Funds and Kotak Mahindra Pension Fund. Assets under management offer insight into scheme scale and acceptance, though the article cautions that size alone should not drive the decision. Asset allocation across equity, corporate bonds and government securities is also relevant within similar risk categories.
On naming, PFRDA has prescribed a uniform structure for MSF scheme names with standardised elements. The regulator has clarified that category codes A to E will not be part of the scheme name, and where a pension fund runs more than one scheme in the same category, each must have a distinct name.
Points of Presence operating their own platforms, including banks and brokerages, must display schemes from all pension funds in the selected category. A PoP may feature a particular fund's schemes at the top or pre-select one, but it cannot hide competing schemes in the same category. The exception applies when a subscriber directly uses a pension fund's own website or app and that fund manages onboarding; in that case, only its own schemes may be shown.
Taken together, the framework creates a standard comparison window for NPS subscribers, allowing investors to compare offerings across multiple fund managers within each category before investing.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.