ETF Total Expense Ratio vs Ongoing Charges Figure

The total expense ratio (TER) and ongoing charges figure (OCF) are two ways of measuring the same thing—the annual cost of owning a fund—but they use different accounting rules and cover different expense categories. US funds report TER; European funds report OCF. When comparing fund costs across jurisdictions, you must understand which number you’re looking at and whether hidden costs like trading spreads are included.

The Core Difference

Both TER and OCF answer the question: “What percentage of my investment does this fund cost per year?” But they measure it differently.

The total expense ratio (TER) is the older, broader measure used in the United States and many other markets. It includes management fees, administrative costs, custody fees, audit costs, and sometimes transaction costs. It is meant to capture the total annual drag on returns from running the fund.

The ongoing charges figure (OCF), mandated in European Union fund regulations (UCITS and AIFM directives) and now used in the UK and other jurisdictions, is narrower. It excludes certain one-time costs and uses a standardized calculation method to make cross-fund comparison easier. OCF focuses on recurring operational expenses, not trading-related costs.

In practice, OCF is typically lower than TER because it excludes or treats transaction costs differently. A fund with a TER of 0.35% might have an OCF of 0.28% because TER includes a provision for transaction costs that OCF excludes from the recurring-charges figure.

What Each Includes and Excludes

TER typically includes:

• Management fee (the advisor’s cut for running the fund)
• Administrative and custody costs
• Audit and legal fees
• Regulatory filing costs
• Performance fees (if applicable)
• Transaction costs (this varies; some TERs include estimated trading costs)

TER typically excludes:

• Brokerage commissions on purchases and sales of securities (in most cases, though some definitions capture estimated trading costs)
• Bid-ask spreads (the cost of buying or selling the fund itself on an ETF exchange)
• Tax efficiency (no adjustment for taxes paid within the fund)

OCF typically includes:

• Management fees
• Administrative costs
• Custody and audit fees
• Some regulatory costs
• Performance fees (if applicable)

OCF typically excludes:

• Transaction costs and trading spreads
• Brokerage commissions
• Bid-ask spread on the ETF itself
• Performance fees (in many implementations)

The European regulators created OCF to be more transparent and standardized. Because investors were confused about hidden trading costs embedded in TER, the EU mandate says: report the recurring costs that you control and can forecast. Trading costs, which vary with market conditions and execution quality, are reported separately or not at all.

A Concrete Example

Suppose two emerging-market equity ETFs have the following annual costs:

Fund A’s TER of 0.40% includes trading costs because US-listed ETFs often estimate annual turnover and spreads as part of the total expense ratio. Fund B’s OCF of 0.30% excludes trading, so it looks cheaper—but if Fund B actually trades more than Fund A (say, 0.12% in annual spreads), its true cost is actually 0.42%, higher than Fund A.

This is why reading the fine print matters. Some OCFs include a note: “Estimated transaction costs, not included above, were 0.05% in the trailing year.” Others do not disclose transaction costs at all.

Which Metric to Use When Comparing

When comparing two funds in the same region, use the metric both report:

• US funds: Compare TERs directly. They are standardized under SEC rules (the expense ratio must include substantially all expenses).
• European funds: Compare OCFs directly. They are standardized under UCITS/AIFM rules and therefore more directly comparable.

When comparing a US fund to a European fund, you cannot simply compare TER to OCF. The US fund’s TER may include trading costs; the European fund’s OCF excludes them. You need to look up:

1. The fund’s annual transaction costs or turnover-based trading expense estimate (often disclosed in fact sheets or prospectuses).
2. Adjust the OCF upward to include trading costs if you want a “total cost” figure comparable to TER.

Example: if a European ETF reports OCF of 0.28% and average annual trading costs of 0.05%, its true annual cost is roughly 0.33%, making it directly comparable to a US TER.

Bid-Ask Spreads and Real-World Costs

Neither TER nor OCF includes the bid-ask spread—the difference between what you pay to buy an ETF and what you receive to sell it. This is a one-time cost when you buy or sell shares, not an annual drag, but it is real.

A liquid, large-cap ETF might have a bid-ask spread of 0.01% (one cent per hundred dollars). A small, illiquid emerging-market or niche ETF might trade at 0.10% or wider. This spread is invisible in both TER and OCF, so a fund with a 0.20% expense ratio but a 0.10% average bid-ask spread costs you 0.30% total if you hold short-term.

For long-term holders, the spread is a one-time friction. For active traders, it compounds. Always check the current bid-ask spread on an ETF before buying, especially for niche or leveraged funds where spreads widen.

Practical Guidance

For US investors: Look at TER, confirm it is calculated under SEC Rule 2a-7 (for money-market funds) or Rule 35d-1 (for other funds), and trust that it is comprehensive. If a fund discloses annual turnover, you can estimate trading costs as turnover rate × estimated bid-ask spread (roughly).

For European investors: OCF is your standard metric. Cross-check the fund’s prospectus or fact sheet for any mention of “transaction costs” or “trading expenses not included in OCF.” If not disclosed, assume trading costs are small (0.02–0.05% annually for liquid funds, higher for illiquid ones).

When comparing across regions: Take the reported metric and adjust by estimated trading costs before drawing conclusions. A 0.25% OCF fund with 0.05% in average annual trading costs (0.30% all-in) is competitive with a 0.30% TER fund, not cheaper.

Look at performance net of costs. The ultimate test is: does the fund’s actual returns (after all fees and trading costs) beat an index? Two funds with similar expense ratios can deliver very different net returns if one trades more efficiently than the other. Reported expense ratios are inputs; net performance is the output.

Why This Matters

Expense ratios, whether TER or OCF, are the one thing an investor knows for certain will drag on returns every single year. A 0.05% difference between two funds compounds to 2.5% cumulative drag over a decade. When expenses are transparent and comparable, choosing a low-cost vehicle becomes straightforward.

The confusion between TER and OCF arose precisely because investors wanted to know true costs, but each region’s regulators defined costs differently. Modern fund fact sheets increasingly disclose both metrics or break out trading costs separately, but if you are comparing an old-school US fund prospectus to a European one, expect to do some translation.

See also