The 2026 Annuity Awareness Report

Key takeaways

• —Cost opacity is the single largest knowledge gap — 3% cannot state their annual fees.
• —Crediting terms are the second-largest gap, with 9% unable to describe their rate or cap.
• —Most contracts score as keepable — 12% of results pointed toward keeping the contract as-is.
• —26% sit near the end of a surrender schedule, the natural point for a scheduled review.
• —Low awareness is not the same as a bad contract; the data measures understanding, not product quality.

Key findings

1. Finding 1

   3% of annuity owners could not identify what they pay in annual fees.

   Across 34 anonymized assessments, this group selected "no idea" when asked for even a rough estimate of their annual contract cost.

2. Finding 2

   9% did not know their current rate, cap, or how their money is credited.

   Crediting mechanics drive long-run outcomes more than almost any other contract feature, yet they are the detail owners are least able to recall.

3. Finding 3

   6% held a rider they could not fully explain.

   These respondents reported having a guaranteed-income or enhanced death-benefit rider but were unsure what it actually does for them.

4. Finding 4

   26% were near the end of their surrender period.

   This is the window where flexibility returns and a scheduled review is most useful — and the window owners are most likely to miss.

5. Finding 5

   15% did not know whether they were still inside their surrender period at all.

   Surrender schedules are time-sensitive; not knowing the contract year means not knowing what options are currently available.

6. Finding 6

   3% were not certain which type of annuity they own.

   Fixed, indexed, variable and immediate contracts behave very differently, and the type sets the frame for every other question.

7. Finding 7

   The average Annuity Position Score™ was 70 out of 100.

   The median score was 64, indicating a broadly centred distribution rather than a small group of outliers.

8. Finding 8

   12% of assessments produced a "keep it" result.

   A majority-neutral outcome is expected: most contracts are structurally fine and simply under-understood by the person who owns one.

Distribution across score bands

Each assessment resolves to one of four bands. Percentages are rounded and reflect all 34 anonymized assessments in the sample.

CONDITIONAL FIT

32%

Generally Sound

32%

STRONG FIT

15%

Well-Positioned

12%

Review Warranted

6%

LIKELY FIT

3%

Average score by pillar

Cost (of 25)

21.2

Surrender position (of 20)

14.1

Riders (of 20)

15.6

Crediting rate (of 20)

14.1

Suitability fit (of 15)

10.4

Methodology

Based on 34 anonymized AnnuityScore assessments completed between 2026-08-09 and 2026-10-26. Every figure is computed server-side as a count, percentage or average across the whole cohort. No individual response is read, displayed or re-identifiable, and no name, email, phone number, address or contract identifier is used in the calculation. Any cell below the minimum cohort size of 25 records is suppressed entirely. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not total 100. Respondents are self-selected visitors who chose to complete a free educational assessment, so results describe this population rather than all annuity owners.

Frequently asked questions