The SPHERE 2025 analysis of Swiss private banks compares eight indicators of profitability, growth, efficiency and productivity. It reveals significant disparities between institutions and highlights very different business models, where revenue structure, strategic choices and investments ultimately carry as much weight as the ratios themselves.
American sports and their fans are avid consumers of statistics of all kinds. There is a wealth of figures available to assess, evaluate and gauge the performances of their teams and the players who make up their squads. Swiss private banks, of course, are also entitled to their top performers, their best scorers. In this specific sector, it is equally interesting to compile specific rankings to better assess the performance of each institution.
The first of its kind, the SPHERE x Finews barometer focuses on eight indicators, namely return on equity, return on assets, return in basis points on assets under management, the cost-income ratio, net inflows as a proportion of assets, the proportion of discretionary mandates, assets under management per employee and staff costs per employee. It provides a highly informative snapshot of the market and helps to identify some key trends. However, none of these indicators is sufficient on its own to judge a private bank’s performance, as the same ratio may reflect, in turn, a favourable revenue mix, a deliberately simple business model, or a growth strategy that is still ongoing. It is by cross-referencing profitability, efficiency and productivity per employee that the ranking takes on its full meaning – a dimension that will become increasingly significant year on year, as this annual barometer enables us to track each institution’s trajectory more effectively and identify genuine sector-wide trends.
The figure that stands out in these benchmarks is Safra Sarasin’s cost-income ratio. The cost-income ratio is one of the key indicators in this industry. At 48.6 per cent, Safra Sarasin’s ratio is more than twenty points ahead of the majority of the panel. Many institutions have ratios ranging from 65 per cent to 73 per cent. Only Zaehringer comes close to this figure. Such a disparity warrants closer scrutiny before broadening the analysis to include all the ratios in the ranking.
The group’s annual report reveals what the figure alone does not show. Of the 1.742 billion francs in operating income, trading and securities commissions account for a significant proportion of revenue, with 317.8 million in trading profits and 723.5 million in commissions from investment activities respectively. These are highly profitable activities, without requiring the same human and material resources as lending or traditional discretionary asset management.
A one-off factor also plays a significant role in the 2025 result. A reversal of impairment charges for default risks amounting to 148.3 million has boosted the net profit from interest-bearing operations. Without this effect, which cannot be replicated every year, the ratio would be closer to 53–54 per cent. It would nonetheless be impressive.
Moreover, expenses are rising faster than income, driven in particular by variable share-based remuneration, which is up by 19 per cent. And productivity per employee, measured in terms of assets under management per full-time equivalent, remains significantly lower than that of the top performers in this ranking (86.2 million for Safra Sarasin). Safra Sarasin’s cost-to-income ratio is therefore primarily due to the structure of its income, rather than superior operational efficiency per employee. This in no way detracts from the impressive discipline and rigour with which the bank controls its costs.
Zaehringer: a rare consistency across almost all ratios
Whilst Safra Sarasin impresses with its cost-to-income ratio, Zaehringer stands out for its consistency across the board. The bank ranks first in return on equity, at 21.2 per cent; first in return in basis points, at 28.0 bp; second in the cost-income ratio (50.4 per cent); first in the proportion of discretionary mandates (93.8 per cent) and second in assets per employee (123.6 million).
Martin Schenk, CEO of Zaehringer, attributes this consistency to a deliberate strategic choice rather than to any single ratio. “We focus on private banking for clients domiciled exclusively in Switzerland. This means we face low regulatory complexity,” he explains. The bank prioritises “transparent investments, such as direct investments and cost-efficient index-linked instruments”. It does not, under any circumstances, position itself as a manufacturer or distributor of financial products.
The organisation itself focuses on efficiency, with non-core activities systematically outsourced. The shareholding structure reinforces this approach, as 75 per cent of the shares are held by the operational owners and all staff are also shareholders in the bank. “Short decision-making processes, a high degree of individual responsibility and an entrepreneurial culture characterise the way we work. We believe it is precisely the interplay of these different elements that explains our high levels of profitability, efficiency and productivity,” summarises Schenk.
The case of Banque Heritage
Heritage Bank, for its part, tops the rankings for net inflows as a proportion of assets (15.9 per cent). It also posts the highest return on assets (1.39 per cent), as well as the second-highest return in basis points (23.0 bp). Marcos Esteve, the bank’s CEO, attributes part of this performance to the group’s very structure. “We have a bank in Uruguay whose business is very different from the bank in Switzerland; it is geared more towards entrepreneurs, offering corporate lending and private banking services. And where there’s lending, there’s a slightly wider spread,” he explains, before adding that in Switzerland alone, his bank’s ROA stands at around 1.09 per cent – a level he considers solid, placing it among the top five in the sector.
On profitability in basis points, he explains that the discretionary management penetration rate published by the bank, combined with assets under advisory management, exceeds 40 per cent. He points out, however, that this figure must be interpreted whilst taking into account the contribution of independent fund managers, who account for 35 per cent of the bank’s assets and are structurally outside the scope of internal mandates. When considered solely in relation to the volume of assets managed directly by the bank – which accounts for around 70 per cent of the total – this penetration rate would therefore automatically be higher.
As for the cost-income ratio, however, Marcos Esteve interprets it in the context of the bank’s growth phase. In his view, any growing bank goes through an investment phase, which generates costs before generating revenue, which inherently makes it more difficult to improve the ratio. He cites, in particular, the recruitment of bankers – the impact of which on revenue is deferred – and the ongoing migration to a new IT platform.
“We need to strike the right balance between growth and cost control. As long as we maintain sound and acceptable ratios, as is the case today, we are on the right track.”
Beyond the figures, Marcos Esteve sees these benchmarks as a management tool in their own right. “The analysis allows me to gauge our performance against that of our peers, identify areas for improvement and understand what sets the best-performing institutions apart. It is an essential tool for checking that we are moving forward, and above all that we are making progress from one year to the next,” he summarises.
A cross-referenced analysis rather than an isolated ratio
The other institutions in the panel illustrate different trade-offs. Pictet combines the highest assets per employee (174.1 million), a sign of a large-scale model, with a higher cost-to-income ratio (72.0 per cent), suggesting a heavier cost structure relative to revenue despite its size. Maerki Baumann has the highest staff costs per employee in the panel (330.2 thousand francs) whilst maintaining a solid return on equity (18.1 per cent, third place), indicating a model that relies on costly but productive teams.
Finally, this ranking shows that no single indicator is sufficient on its own to assess a private bank’s performance. The same ratio may reflect, in turn, a favourable revenue mix, a deliberately simple business model, or a growth strategy that is still ongoing.
Return on Equity
- Zähringer Privatbank — 21.2%
- Pictet Bank — 20.3%
- Maerki Baumann — 18.1%
- Cité Gestion — 16.2%
- Lombard Odier — 13.7%
- Heritage Bank — 12.5%
- Bank Vontobel — 11.3%
- Piguet Galland — 11.1%
- Bank Julius Baer — 10.6%
- Bergos — 9.5%
Return on assets (ROA)
- Heritage Bank — 1.39%
- BIL Suisse — 1.36%
- Zarattini — 1.21%
- Bank von Roll — 1.20%
- Hyposwiss Private Bank Geneva — 1.14%
- Cité Gestion — 1.02%
- CBH Compagnie Bancaire Helvétique — 0.94%
- Banque Gonet — 0.91%
- Piguet Galland — 0.88%
- PKB Privatbank — 0.87%
Profitability in basis points (net profit / AUM)
- Zähringer Privatbank — 28.0
- Heritage Bank — 23.0
- Bank J. Safra Sarasin — 22.9
- CBH Compagnie Bancaire Helvétique — 20.6
- Bank von Roll — 20.4
- BIL Suisse — 16.0
- Dreyfus Bank — 15.5
- Bank Julius Baer — 14.7
- Union Bancaire Privée — 14.6
- Maerki Baumann — 12.7
Cost/Income Ratio (from lowest to highest)
- Bank J. Safra Sarasin — 48.6%
- Zähringer Privatbank — 50.4%
- Banque Dreyfus — 64.9%
- CBH Compagnie Bancaire Helvétique — 65.4%
- Bank von Roll — 67.0%
- Hyposwiss Private Bank Geneva — 67.7%
- Maerki Baumann — 69.5%
- Union Bancaire Privée — 69.6%
- Banque Pictet — 72.0%
- Bank Vontobel — 73.0%
Net inflows as a percentage of assets (NNA)
- Banque Heritage — 15.9%
- PKB Privatbank — 12.4%
- CBH Compagnie Bancaire Helvétique — 10.7%
- Zähringer Privatbank — 9.4%
- CA Indosuez (Switzerland) — 7.9%
- Banca Credinvest — 7.8%
- Zarattini — 6.6%
- Cité Gestion — 5.9%
- Edmond de Rothschild (Switzerland) — 4.8%
- Maerki Baumann — 3.8%
Discretionary mandates (% of AUM)
- Zähringer Privatbank — 93.8%
- Cité Gestion — 80.8%
- Maerki Baumann — 59.1%
- Piguet Galland — 51.1%
- Hyposwiss Private Bank Geneva — 50.7%
- Mirabaud — 40.6%
- PKB Privatbank — 34.8%
- Banque Syz — 34.2%
- Banque Dreyfus — 34.2%
- Lombard Odier — 33.9%
AUM / FTE (CHF million)
- Pictet Bank — 174.1
- Zähringer Privatbank — 123.6
- Maerki Baumann — 119.7
- Bank Vontobel — 104.2
- Dreyfus Bank — 96.7
- Bank J. Safra Sarasin — 86.2
- Lombard Odier — 77.8
- Edmond de Rothschild (Switzerland) — 74.4
- Banque Eric Sturdza — 71.7
- Bank Julius Baer — 70.5
Staff costs / FTE (CHF k)
- Maerki Baumann — 330.2
- Dreyfus Bank — 308.7
- Bank Vontobel — 305.5
- Gonet Bank — 294.3
- Pictet Bank — 293.2
- Zähringer Privatbank — 286.4
- Lombard Odier — 285.9
- BIL Suisse — 284.6
- Union Bancaire Privée — 283.8
- Syz Bank — 279.6