PenFit turns individual retirement preferences into evidence for proposition design. Each page below answers one question, using the same underlying framework.
Illustrative company pension population. No individual-level data is shown to the organisation.
The context for every result in this illustrative Insights report.
The twelve retirement values ranked by relative importance across this population.
Two different population signals: how often an approach is the top fit, and its average alignment across all individuals.
Thirteen retirement characteristics, ordered from highest to lowest design requirement.
Map the retirement approaches available today against the demand signals from the population.
| Retirement approach | Available? | Population demand signal | Design implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible Income | Yes | High | Core strength |
| Secure Income | Yes | Low | Useful, but not the dominant preference |
| Target Income | No | Selective | Monitor |
| Flexible and Secure Income Mix | Yes | Medium | Supports mixed needs |
| Flexible Income then Secure Income Later | No | High | Material proposition gap |
| Flexible Income with Secure Income Build-Up | No | Medium | Development opportunity |
Difference between what individuals value and what the current proposition delivers at characteristic level.
A synthetic representative profile shown through the same result cards as the PenFit Individual experience.
Scroll through all six retirement approaches.
Income designed to last for life, with investment growth still able to help support it.
A guaranteed level of income, full access to the underlying pension money, or full individual control.
Once pension money moves into Target Income, direct access to that money as an individual pension pot is usually given up.
Some secure income for life while keeping some pension money flexible and accessible.
Maximum flexibility or maximum security — part stays flexible and part is used to provide secure income.
Some choices remain open, but the part used for secure income is harder to reverse later.
Full control and flexibility today, with the option to create secure lifetime income later.
Secure income now — investment and longevity risk remain until more income is secured later.
You can choose to create secure income later, at a time that suits the strategy.
Keep pension money flexible while gradually building a larger amount of secure lifetime income.
A fully secure income immediately — security is built gradually and flexible-income risk remains.
The pace of future securing can change, but secure income already purchased is harder to reverse.
A high level of predictable lifetime-income security with relatively little ongoing management.
Full access to the pension money used to secure income, or the same level of individual control.
Once pension money is exchanged for secure lifetime income, the decision is generally difficult to reverse.
High access, control, reversibility and retained pension wealth.
Guaranteed income for life; market falls can reduce pension wealth and future income, and there is more to manage.
Money that remains invested and accessible can generally be redirected into another retirement approach later.
Optional cohort analysis where broad bands add useful design insight without turning PenFit into a fact-find.
| Illustrative segment | Top value | Best-aligned approach | Biggest proposition gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under 55 | Ability to change course | Flexible Income | Later-life reserve |
| 55–64 | Income for life | Flexible Income then Secure Income Later | Reversibility |
| 65+ | Income for life | Secure Income | Access to pension wealth |
| Approaching retirement | Income predictability | Flexible and Secure Income Mix | Ability to change course |
Compare underlying retirement values and design requirements before drawing conclusions about products.
Repeat PenFit periodically to test whether priorities and design requirements are changing rather than assuming they are permanent.
A transparent stress test of whether the scoring architecture itself favours one retirement approach before an individual expresses a preference.
| Retirement approach | Ranked first | Highest winning alignment | Audit result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible Income | 17.4% | 82.3 | PASS |
| Secure Income | 21.2% | 90.3 | PASS |
| Target Income | 14.2% | 85.8 | PASS |
| Flexible and Secure Income Mix | 19.8% | 86.0 | PASS |
| Flexible Income then Secure Income Later | 11.6% | 84.8 | PASS |
| Flexible Income with Secure Income Build-Up | 15.8% | 86.0 | PASS |
An individual selecting A/B on all 12 questions now gives all six strategies exactly the same 57.9 score — no manufactured Rank 1.
The model corrects for strategies whose scores naturally move more or less as answers change, rather than rewarding a wider scoring range.
Each retirement value appears twice and every response uses the same A+ / A / A/B / B / B+ evidence scale.
No strategy bonuses, equal-win targets or artificial 100% top score are imposed. Genuine differences and close trade-offs remain visible.