Wahed vs Simply Ethical (2026): The UK's Two Managed Halal Platforms Compared

If you want your halal portfolio managed rather than self-built, Britain offers exactly two credible specialists, and they are more different than their marketing suggests. Wahed is a robo-adviser: app-first, GBP 50 entry, automated everything. Simply Ethical is a wealth manager: advice-led, GBP 1,000 entry, religious accounting included. Same market, different species. All figures verified against provider disclosures, August 6, 2026.

The numbers side by side

Portfolio construction: in-house versus third-party

Wahed builds from its own Dow Jones Islamic World and S&P 500 Shariah UCITS ETFs, plus the HSBC Global Sukuk Index Fund, an iShares sukuk ETF and Royal Mint gold. Efficient, and structurally self-interested: Wahed earns fund economics on top of its wrap fee, and you cannot swap components. Simply Ethical allocates to external institutional funds, the Franklin Global Sukuk Fund, the Schroder Islamic Global Equity Fund, an HSBC Islamic ESG ETF and gold, which removes the self-dealing question at the cost of a concentrated fund lineup. Published performance exists only on one side: Simply Ethical's portfolios returned 4.2% to 13.3% annualised over the five years to 30 June 2026, by risk tier.

Governance: audit trail versus binding committee

Both use Shariyah Review Bureau, differently. Wahed appoints SRB as its Shariah Committee and publishes six years of annual Shariah Supervisory Board reports (2019-2024), the deepest public audit trail in UK retail. Simply Ethical carries firm-level certification: a two-scholar committee (Mufti Faraz Adam and Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad) whose pronouncements are binding on the firm, annual SRB audits, and certificates published with verification codes, including for its zakah and purification methodology, with equity screening tighter than the AAOIFI baseline for direct mandates. Wahed wins on published history; Simply Ethical wins on the depth of what is certified. Both clear any reasonable bar.

Cost over time: the crossover

At GBP 5,000, Wahed's all-in cost and Simply Ethical's roughly 1.1% land close together, and Wahed's lower minimum decides. As balances grow, Simply Ethical's tiers bite: at GBP 100,000 its blended platform fee sits meaningfully under Wahed's 1%, with the gap widening past GBP 250,000 even as Wahed's own tiers step down. For six-figure portfolios the fee argument tilts clearly toward Simply Ethical, before counting the advice layer. Both are undercut heavily by DIY fund ownership, which is the comparison neither platform volunteers.

Service model: app versus adviser

Wahed's experience is consumer software: onboarding in minutes, everything in-app, no human in the loop, and no one to tell you whether an ISA or a pension suits your situation. Simply Ethical's simplified advice assesses your risk profile with a 180-day reassessment cycle, and its consolidation-minded pension service reviews existing arrangements; the trade is paperwork and pace. Neither offers the full financial-planning relationship a high-net-worth household might want, though Simply Ethical's full-advice tier, from roughly GBP 50,000 to GBP 100,000, reaches toward it.

The verdict by investor type

• First-time investor with under GBP 1,000: Wahed, by default and by design.
• Saver with GBP 50,000 plus who wants management and religious accounting: Simply Ethical, on fees and service depth.
• Consolidating old pensions: Simply Ethical's adviser-led review versus Wahed's execution-only SIPP; see our SIPP guide.
• Anyone primarily minimising cost: neither; a DIY ISA with the funds from our best funds guide wins the arithmetic.

The wrappers, compared in practice

Both platforms cover the same four wrappers with different personalities. ISAs: Wahed's is a standard Stocks and Shares ISA with free transfers; Simply Ethical's is a flexible ISA on Fundment, so withdrawn money can return within the tax year without burning allowance, a genuinely useful feature Wahed lacks. Junior ISAs: identical logic to the adult accounts, with Wahed's GBP 50 entry making it the easier family default. Pensions: Wahed's SIPP is execution-only with a GBP 2.50 monthly fee and WealthKernel administration; Simply Ethical wraps its pension in an adviser-led consolidation review, materially safer when old schemes hide exit penalties or guarantees. General accounts round out both. For most households the wrapper needs decide more than the brand does, which is why the comparison belongs late in your decision, not first.

What neither platform gives you

Shared blind spots deserve equal billing. Neither offers a cash-style product, so emergency funds live elsewhere, on Islamic bank accounts. Neither provides meaningful direct stock dealing; investors wanting to hold individual screened shares need a broker and the screening discipline that comes with it. Neither runs a de-risking glidepath in its pension, leaving retirement-proximity risk management to you. And neither competes on raw cost with DIY fund ownership, a comparison both would prefer you not run and our fees guide runs anyway. Choosing between them is choosing your preferred management style, not escaping the market's structural gaps.

Frequently asked questions

Which has better returns?

They are not benchmarked against each other and hold different assets; only Simply Ethical publishes a five-year record. Comparable risk tiers hold overlapping exposures, so costs and construction, not manager skill, will likely decide the long-run difference.

Can I hold both?

Yes, subject to ISA rules: you can pay new money into only one Stocks and Shares ISA per tax year, so split roles across wrappers or years, covered in our ISA guide.

Are both properly regulated?

Both are FCA-authorised, Wahed Invest Ltd under 833225 and Simply Ethical Financial Services Ltd under 511220, with client assets held through platform custody arrangements (WealthKernel and Fundment respectively). Regulation covers conduct, not investment performance.

Which is better for consolidating old pensions?

Simply Ethical, for process reasons: an adviser reviews ceding schemes before transfers move, catching exit fees and safeguarded benefits that execution-only flows rely on you to spot. Wahed's SIPP accepts transfers but declines DB schemes outright and provides no advice. For scattered DC pots with nothing exotic inside, either works; for anything you do not fully understand, advice-led wins.

Do their Shariah standards differ in practice?

Both operate under Shariyah Review Bureau governance and both handle purification, so the practical compliance experience is equivalent. The differences are archival and structural: Wahed publishes more history, Simply Ethical certifies more of the firm. Investors comfortable with either standard should let fees, minimums and service decide.

The one-sentence verdict

Wahed is the better first account and Simply Ethical the better destination account: start where GBP 50 and automation remove excuses, and reassess at the balance where tiered fees, advice and done-for-you religious accounting begin earning their keep. Households that never reassess leave money on the table in both directions, which is the only genuinely wrong strategy the comparison allows.

Switching between them later

Nothing about the choice is permanent: ISAs and pensions transfer between providers without losing wrapper status, and both firms accept transfers in. The practical friction is time out of the market during the transfer and the paperwork of moving advised arrangements, both modest. That safety net should lower the stakes of the initial decision; pick the platform that fits today's balance and revisit when the balance or your needs change. Figures verified August 6, 2026.