Plan Ledger Research · plan year 2024 filings · published August 2026
The headline number
21x
Workers at the smallest employers pay 21 times more, relative to assets, to have their 401(k) administered than workers at the largest. The median plan under $1M in assets reported administrative expenses of 0.96% of plan assets for 2024; the median plan over $1B reported 0.05%. On a $50,000 balance, that is $482 a year against $23.
What we analyzed
Plan Ledger compiled the 66,577 Form 5500 filings that large defined-contribution retirement plans submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor for plan year 2024, covering $9.19 trillion in net assets and 83.2 million participant accounts. These are the plans' own audited reports: assets, contributions, and the administrative expenses paid out of plan assets. Our full database spans 220,361 filings across 81,250 employers.
The figures below use each plan's separately reported administrative expenses (Schedule H line 2i(5)) divided by average plan assets, the one cost component that is consistently measurable in the public record. Fund expense ratios, usually a participant's largest cost, are not in the public structured data, so total costs run higher than any number here.
Median admin expense ratio by plan size · 2024
Under $1M0.96% · 1,109 plans
$1M–$10M0.53% · 18,840 plans
$10M–$50M0.29% · 27,838 plans
$50M–$250M0.14% · 10,352 plans
$250M–$1B0.07% · 2,883 plans
Over $1B0.05% · 1,229 plans
Why the gap exists
Running a plan has fixed costs: recordkeeping, an annual audit, trustee and advisory fees. Spread over a few dozen participants those costs are a meaningful slice of assets; spread over a hundred thousand they round toward zero. Large sponsors also negotiate from strength and can pay some costs from corporate funds rather than participant assets. The result is a quiet regressive tilt in the retirement system: the less your employer has, the more of your balance goes to overhead.
The match gap compounds it
The same size gradient shows up on the contribution side. Employers sponsoring the largest plans put in a median of $5,259 per active participant in 2024; small-business plans in the $1M–$10M bracket put in $1,313, and plans under $1M just $540. Balances follow: the typical average account at an over-$1B plan held $174,633, against $33,240 at $1M–$10M plans.
Median employer contribution per active participant · 2024
Under $1M$540
$1M–$10M$1,313
$10M–$50M$2,416
$50M–$250M$3,635
$250M–$1B$4,294
Over $1B$5,259
Industry and geography
Because sector medians track employer size, the gap maps onto the labor market. Accommodation & Food Services plans carry the highest typical administrative ratio (0.58%); utilities the lowest (0.15%). Employer generosity divides the same way: median contributions run from $5,344 per participant in utilities down to $540 in accommodation & food services. Among states with at least 100 plans on file, employers in Arizona report the highest median ratio (0.47%) and District of Columbia the lowest (0.18%).
Method and caveats
Medians only; a plan reporting zero separately-itemized admin expense (common where costs are paid via fund revenue-sharing, especially at mega-plans) is excluded rather than counted as free. Comparisons are within plan year 2024 only: the Department's 2023 Schedule H changes pushed more plans to itemize fees they previously netted against returns, so reported ratios are not comparable across years. Every underlying filing can be verified on the Department of Labor's EFAST2 system, and every employer named on this site has a page linking to its source filing. Full detail: methodology.
Reuse
Journalists and researchers may republish any figure in this report with attribution to Plan Ledger and a link to this page. We can also cut these numbers by state, industry, or employer on request.
Source: Plan Ledger analysis of DOL Form 5500 Schedule H filings, plan year 2024 (snapshot 2026-09-10). Administrative expenses are those separately reported on Schedule H line 2i(5); fund-level expense ratios are not included in public structured data. Methodology.