Is a Pooled Employer Plan right for your organization?
Compare PEPs and standalone retirement plans based on administrative support, fiduciary responsibility, investment flexibility and your organization’s priorities
September 14, 2026
A pooled employer plan, or PEP, may offer organizations a way to simplify certain retirement plan responsibilities and delegate key fiduciary functions. But common assumptions about PEPs, including that they’re always less expensive or offer less flexibility, don’t necessarily hold true.
PEPs can vary significantly in their structure, services and capabilities. And a well-designed standalone retirement plan may offer many of the same advantages organizations associate with a PEP. The right choice depends on the specific options being compared and which best aligns with your organization’s priorities.
What is a Pooled Employer Plan (PEP)?
A PEP is a retirement plan that allows multiple unrelated employers to participate in a single, professionally managed plan. The Pooled Plan Provider (PPP) assumes many of the fiduciary and administrative responsibilities that would otherwise fall on each individual employer.
PEP assets reached approximately $20 billion in 2024 and are projected to exceed $30 billion when year-end 2025 data become available. Today, more than 51,000 employers participate in PEPs, representing over 1.6 million workers.¹ As the PEP market has grown and offerings have evolved, employers have more options, and potentially more differences among PEPs, to consider when evaluating whether a PEP or standalone plan best aligns with their priorities.
Why are employers considering PEPs?
PEPs can offer employers access to administrative and fiduciary support by shifting certain responsibilities to the pooled plan provider and other plan fiduciaries.
But the potential advantages of a PEP, including cost, flexibility and available services, can vary by solution. That makes it important to look beyond common assumptions and evaluate the specific options available to your organization.
Common PEP misconceptions
| Common misconception | What to consider |
|---|---|
| PEPs are always less expensive | Pooling may create efficiencies, but costs vary. Compare the total cost of the specific PEP and standalone options to the services you’re actually receiving. |
| PEPs eliminate employer fiduciary responsibility | A PEP can shift significant fiduciary responsibilities, but employers retain certain responsibilities. |
| PEPs mean giving up flexibility and investment choice | Capabilities vary by PEP. Some may offer more plan design and investment flexibility than employers expect. |
What you should know: PEPs aren’t all the same. Understanding the specific solution and how it compares with your standalone plan is key.
What are the primary considerations?
Rather than evaluating PEPs and standalone plans based on broad assumptions, compare the specific solutions available to your organization across three key areas.
- Administration – What responsibilities and day-to-day tasks would be handled for you? What would remain with your staff?
- Fiduciary support – Which fiduciary responsibilities would be delegated? Which would your organization retain?
- Investments – What investment options are available and how flexible are they? Who is responsible for selecting and monitoring them?
A PEP may simplify plan administration and expand access to delegated support, but some PEP solutions may also narrow certain plan design, investment and governance options. This underscores the importance of working with your advisor to carefully evaluate the specific services and capabilities offered by the PEP or standalone providers.
Comparing plan structures
A side-by-side view
| Feature | Standalone Single-employer plan | PEP Pooled Employer Plan |
|---|---|---|
| Administration | More responsibilities managed by plan sponsor | More of the sponsor’s current responsibilities delegated to PEP provider |
| Fiduciary responsibility | Responsibility retained by plan sponsor | Most responsibilities delegated to PEP provider |
| Plan design flexibility | Varies by plan and provider | Varies by PEP solution |
| Investment lineup | Sponsor-directed and maximum flexibility to tailor as plan needs change | Determined by PEP provider |
| Form 5500 / audit | Handled by the plan sponsor | Handled by the PEP provider |
| Cost | Varies by provider and services | Varies by PEP provider services |
Which structure fits best?
A PEP may be a good fit when …
- You want to reduce time spent on plan administration
- Delegating more fiduciary responsibility would create value
- You’re looking to simplify governance and compliance
- Reducing complexity and cost of audit and Form 5500 filing is a priority
- You’re comfortable sharing certain plan-level decisions with the PEP provider
A standalone plan may be a good fit when …
- You prefer to retain more plan administration control
- You’re comfortable with retaining more fiduciary responsibilities
- You want direct control over governance and decision making
- You want more control over investment selection and replacement
Plan features, investment options, participant experiences and costs can vary by PEP provider. Your advisor can help you compare available solutions.
Is this enough to determine the right fit?
The comparison above is a starting point, not a one-size-fits-all answer. The right fit depends on your organization’s priorities and the specific solutions available. For some organizations, that may point toward a PEP. For others, a well-designed standalone plan may remain the stronger long-term fit.
Why Voya
There isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer, and that’s why Voya offers both PEP and standalone solutions. We can help you and your advisor compare your options and determine the retirement plan structure and solution that best align with your organization’s priorities.
Ready to evaluate your options?
Your Voya representative can help you evaluate which approach best fits your business.
1 Georgetown University Center for Retirement Initiatives, Pooled Employer Plans (PEPs): Five Year of Growth, Market Evolution, and the Opportunities and Challenges Ahead, June 2026.
2 Mercer, Voice of the Plan Sponsor: 2025 Defined Contribution (DC) Practices.
3 2026 PLANSPONSOR Recordkeeping Survey. PLANSPONSOR is an ISS Media Brand. Published July 2026, based on YE 2025 data (latest available) as reported by 36 companies participating in the survey. No fee is paid for consideration. Awards and/or rankings are not representative of actual client experiences or outcomes, and are not indicative of any future performance.
4 Total Employer-Sponsored DC Plans, As of 3/31/26 – Internal Voya data
5 As of 3/31/26 – Internal Voya data
6 As of 3/31/2026. Representing Voya and its predecessor companies. Based on 59.59 years max client tenure at end of 2025, thus nearly 60 years by end of 1Q26.
The information presented is for educational purposes only. Neither Voya® nor its affiliated companies or representatives provide tax or legal advice. Each plan has unique requirements and should consult its attorney or tax advisor for guidance on its specific situation. Voya strongly suggests speaking with tax and legal advisors before making changes to a plan.
Products and services offered through the Voya® family of companies.
CN5773732_0928