Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) was worth NOK 21,268 billion at 31 December 2025, and its investments returned 15.1% in 2025 in the fund’s currency basket. That one-year result is not directly comparable with Singapore’s GIC or Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), which report annualised returns over 20- and 30-year periods. The three funds also have different mandates, reporting calendars and disclosure practices.
What Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global is
GPFG is commonly called Norway’s “oil fund,” but its formal name is the Government Pension Fund Global. Norges Bank manages the fund on behalf of Norway’s Ministry of Finance. The Ministry sets the mandate; Norges Bank invests within it. The fund is not an asset of the central bank’s own balance sheet.
The stated objective is “to achieve the highest possible long-term return within the constraints laid down in the mandate from the Ministry of Finance.” The mandate and manager therefore matter when comparing GPFG with sovereign investors whose clients, objectives and investment frameworks differ.
Norway’s fund value, portfolio and 2025 return
At 31 December 2025, GPFG’s reported value was NOK 21,268 billion. Its 2025 investment return was 15.1% in the fund’s currency basket, equivalent to NOK 2,362 billion in accounting terms. The return was 0.28 percentage point below its benchmark.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →#1 Best Overall
The 15.1% is an investment-performance measure, not the percentage change in the fund’s NOK value. Reported value can also change with currency translation, market performance and capital flows. NBIM says the fund’s investments covered 68 countries and 41 currencies at year end; its return-measurement basket comprised 34 currencies.
The year-end portfolio allocation was:
| Asset class | Share at 31 December 2025 |
|---|---|
| Equities | 71.3% |
| Fixed income | 26.5% |
| Unlisted real estate | 1.7% |
| Unlisted renewable-energy infrastructure | 0.4% |
The displayed shares add to 99.9% because of rounding.
How the three funds differ
| Fund | Mandate and oversight | Disclosure and portfolio information | Reported performance and date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Norway: GPFG | Managed by Norges Bank for the Ministry of Finance. The objective is the highest possible long-term return within the Ministry’s mandate. | Reports point-in-time asset-class weights, country and currency coverage, and a return measured in a currency basket. | 15.1% in the currency basket for calendar 2025; 0.28 percentage point below benchmark. Year-end value: NOK 21,268 billion at 31 December 2025. |
| Singapore: GIC | Mandate: preserve and enhance the international purchasing power of the government reserves placed under its management through good long-term real returns. | Its framework refreshed from 2026 distinguishes a Strategic Portfolio, reflecting the client’s risk appetite and long-term return expectations, from an active portfolio seeking to outperform it within approved risk parameters. | For the 20 years ending 31 March 2026: 5.6% annualised nominal return in US dollars and 3.4% annualised real return after global inflation. Reporting year ends 31 March. |
| Abu Dhabi: ADIA | Mission: sustain Abu Dhabi’s long-term prosperity by prudently growing capital. | Publishes long-term strategic allocation ranges by asset class and region, rather than a directly comparable point-in-time allocation in the 2025 review summary. The ranges can fluctuate and do not total 100%. | At 31 December 2025: annualised point-to-point returns of 6.6% over 20 years and 7.2% over 30 years. ADIA says these are time-weighted calculations based on underlying audited financial data. |
What the comparisons do—and do not—show
Mandates and source of capital
GPFG’s mandate is set by Norway’s Ministry of Finance, with Norges Bank as manager. GIC describes its purpose in terms of preserving and enhancing the international purchasing power of government reserves. ADIA frames its mission around Abu Dhabi’s long-term prosperity. These are not interchangeable objectives, so a return figure alone cannot show which fund best fulfilled its role.
Portfolio disclosure
GPFG’s year-end figures provide specific asset-class weights. ADIA’s cited geographic figures instead describe long-term strategic ranges: North America 45–60%, Europe 15–30%, emerging markets 10–20% and developed Asia 5–10%. Those ranges are not actual weights at 31 December 2025 and should not be read as a point-in-time portfolio. GIC’s refreshed framework describes how its strategic and active portfolios relate, rather than supplying an equivalent allocation snapshot in the cited information.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Performance horizons and measurement
GPFG’s 15.1% is a one-year 2025 return in a currency basket. GIC’s 5.6% nominal and 3.4% real figures are annualised over 20 years in US dollars, while ADIA reports annualised 20- and 30-year figures at 31 December 2025. These answer different questions; they do not support a direct ranking of the three funds’ performance.
A defensible return comparison would align the time horizon, currency, nominal-versus-real basis, fee treatment, valuation dates and calculation method. The published figures identify some, but not all, of those dimensions on a common basis.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Can you say which national fund is biggest or best?
GPFG’s official year-end value establishes its size on 31 December 2025, but the figures presented here do not establish current, consistently measured asset values for all major national funds. They therefore cannot support a comprehensive global size ranking. A fair size comparison needs official figures from the same valuation date, converted to a common currency, with clarity about which assets each figure includes.
“Best” also depends on what is being measured: mandate fulfilment, risk, portfolio disclosure or investment return. For returns, funds must be compared over matching periods and on matching measurement bases before a ranking is meaningful.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
