The Top 10 Swiss Private Banks by AUM: H1 2026 Research Ranking

Swiss private banks by AUM are led by UBS Global Wealth Management, with USD 4.942 trillion in invested assets at 30 June 2026. Pictet follows with CHF 810 billion in assets under management or custody, while Julius Baer reports CHF 546.7 billion in true AUM. Those figures look simple. They are not. Each bank defines its asset base differently, and two institutions in the top ten had not released comparable H1 group AUM when this research closed on 4 October 2026.

This edition therefore does something most league tables avoid: it shows the reporting label, measurement date and comparability limit beside every number. The ranking covers the eight institutions KPMG classifies as Switzerland’s “Big 8” private banks, plus UBS Global Wealth Management and Zürcher Kantonalbank as scale benchmarks. It uses no anonymous estimates and no arithmetic that adds an acquired company’s assets before the buyer publishes a consolidated figure.

Research cut-off: 4 October 2026. Financial figures are rounded only where stated. Links in the ranking lead to the bank’s own release or report.

Swiss private banks by AUM: H1 2026 ranking at a glance

The H1 2026 ranking has one unavoidable split. UBS, Pictet, Julius Baer, ZKB, Vontobel, Lombard Odier, EFG and UBP published current half-year asset figures. J. Safra Sarasin and Edmond de Rothschild did not publish comparable H1 group AUM by the cut-off, so the table carries forward their latest official year-end figures and marks the dates. That is less tidy, but it is true.

*Ranks 7 and 8 are provisional. J. Safra Sarasin and Edmond de Rothschild are ordered by their latest verified figures, both dated 31 December 2025. EFG and UBP have newer June 2026 numbers close enough that a fully synchronized table could change the lower order. The article will update those positions when the missing group disclosures appear.

Why most AUM rankings are wrong before rank one

A credible ranking must separate assets under management from three neighbouring measures. Custody assets may sit at a bank while the client or an external manager makes the investment decisions. Client assets can include custody, deposits and other balances. Invested assets can include advisory, brokerage and deposits alongside discretionary mandates. All four matter commercially, but they do not describe the same responsibility or fee base.

Pictet’s CHF 810 billion is explicitly “assets under management or custody.” UBP publishes client assets. UBS uses invested assets. ZKB publishes managed assets across a universal banking group. Julius Baer, Lombard Odier, J. Safra Sarasin, Edmond de Rothschild and EFG provide versions of AUM, though EFG narrows the label to revenue-generating AUM. A single “AUM” column that strips out those nouns creates precision theatre.

Our editorial rule: rank the reported asset base, preserve the bank’s own label, state the date and never fill a disclosure gap with an estimate.

The scope also needs a boundary. KPMG’s 2026 study names Edmond de Rothschild, EFG, J. Safra Sarasin, Julius Baer, Lombard Odier, Pictet, UBP and Vontobel as Switzerland’s “Big 8” private banks. UBS and ZKB sit outside that peer group: UBS is a global universal bank with the world’s largest wealth-management franchise, while ZKB is a cantonal universal bank. Both appear here because searchers reasonably expect them in a Swiss scale comparison. The filter above lets readers remove them.

There is one more trap. Market performance, currency translation, acquisitions and net new money all move the headline asset base. A rising number does not automatically mean clients chose the bank. In 2025, KPMG found that Swiss private-bank AUM reached CHF 3.5 trillion, helped by CHF 96 billion of net new money, CHF 81 billion of market performance and CHF 35 billion of inorganic growth. Those are three very different growth engines.

What changed in the first half of 2026

The first half of 2026 was broadly positive for reported client assets. Yet the chart below measures change in the asset base, not organic inflows. Markets did much of the lifting at UBP. Julius Baer combined net new money with market and currency effects. EFG’s increase included organic growth and the continuing effect of acquisitions completed in the prior twelve months. The same percentage can therefore tell a different business story at each bank.

The strongest disclosed organic signal came from EFG. It reported CHF 5.7 billion of net new assets and a 6.2% annualised growth rate, above its 4–6% target range. Julius Baer’s CHF 5.7 billion of net new money equated to 2.2% annualised growth, still affected by the bank’s revised risk and compliance framework. UBS GWM attracted USD 73 billion of net new assets in H1. Vontobel’s Private Clients business added CHF 2.5 billion, a 4.1% growth rate.

By contrast, UBP said market performance and managed solutions were the main support for its 4.8% client-asset increase. Lombard Odier described strong net new money but did not publish an amount in its release. Pictet’s short public announcement did not break out H1 net new money. The absence of a number is not a negative signal. It simply limits comparison.

Swiss private banks by AUM, bank by bank: the footnote that matters

1. UBS Global Wealth Management — USD 4.942 trillion

UBS Global Wealth Management remained in a different weight class at 30 June 2026. Invested assets reached USD 4.942 trillion, up from USD 4.753 trillion at the end of 2025. H1 net new assets were USD 73 billion, and the divisional asset base increased by USD 274 billion in the second quarter alone, mainly because of market performance. UBS Group invested assets, a broader figure that also includes Asset Management and parts of Personal & Corporate Banking, reached USD 7.3 trillion.

The footnote is “invested assets.” UBS includes more than discretionary mandates: advisory, brokerage and deposit-linked balances also sit within the measure under its policy. That breadth does not weaken UBS’s lead; it explains what the lead measures. For clients, UBS offers a global booking network, lending capacity, alternatives and investment-bank connectivity that smaller houses cannot reproduce. The trade-off is organizational complexity, especially while the Credit Suisse integration reaches its final stages in 2026.

Size does not guarantee that UBS will accept a particular non-resident profile. Cross-border permissions, residence, citizenship, source of wealth and the booking entity still decide access. Our Swiss bank account guide for non-residents covers that separate onboarding question.

2. Pictet Group — CHF 810 billion under management or custody

Pictet’s reported client asset base rose 7% to CHF 810 billion in H1 2026, an all-time high. Consolidated profit increased 12% to CHF 371 million, while operating income rose 4% and pre-tax expenses increased only 1%. The total capital ratio reached 21.9%, comfortably above the 12% regulatory requirement stated by the group.

Pictet is the largest independent name in this ranking, but CHF 810 billion combines AUM and custody. That is broader than Julius Baer’s AUM, so the CHF 263 billion gap cannot be read as a like-for-like mandate gap. Pictet’s business model is nevertheless unusually clean: wealth management, asset management, alternative investments and asset services, without investment banking or commercial lending. The managing-partner structure also ties ownership to operating responsibility.

For a prospective client, the important question is not whether Pictet is “number two.” It is whether the required mandate, jurisdiction and relationship size fit Pictet’s selective model. Scale supports investment depth. It does not make the onboarding threshold public or universal.

3. Julius Baer — CHF 546.7 billion in AUM

Julius Baer reported the cleanest large-bank AUM number in the group: CHF 546.7 billion at 30 June 2026, up 5% from CHF 521 billion at year-end. Net new money reached CHF 5.7 billion, or 2.2% annualised. The pace remained below the bank’s 4–5% target for 2028 because the revised risk and compliance framework still affected acquisition and retention activity.

Profit quality improved sharply. IFRS net profit reached a half-year record of CHF 673 million. The adjusted cost/income ratio fell to 62.6%, and the CET1 ratio rose to 18.5%. The liquidity coverage ratio reached 344%. Those numbers matter because AUM without operating leverage can create a large but expensive franchise; Julius Baer converted the higher asset base and client activity into stronger earnings.

Julius Baer’s appeal is focus. It is a listed pure-play wealth manager rather than a universal bank. However, the continuing compliance reset is not a footnote to ignore. It may slow relationship onboarding while the bank deliberately raises the quality bar.

4. Zürcher Kantonalbank — CHF 527.2 billion in managed assets

ZKB reported CHF 610.8 billion of client assets at 30 June 2026, including CHF 527.2 billion of managed assets. Managed assets rose 5.7% from year-end, supported by CHF 10.5 billion of net new money and CHF 18.9 billion of positive market performance. Consolidated profit after tax reached CHF 679 million, while the going-concern capital ratio stood at 21.5%.

ZKB is in this article as a benchmark, not as a member of KPMG’s private-bank Big 8. The bank combines retail, corporate, mortgage, trading, private banking and asset management businesses. Its managed-assets figure therefore does not equal private-client AUM. On the other hand, ZKB brings a feature none of the pure private banks can match: the backing structure of a cantonal bank and top-tier external credit ratings.

For non-residents, that safety profile does not imply broad international accessibility. ZKB’s product and residence rules differ from the globally oriented private banks. Treat the bank as a capital-strength comparator first and a cross-border candidate only after confirming eligibility.

5. Vontobel — CHF 252.2 billion in group AUM

Vontobel’s group AUM rose 5% to CHF 252.2 billion in H1 2026. The figure spans Private Clients and Institutional Clients; the latter accounted for CHF 112.5 billion. Private Clients attracted CHF 2.5 billion in net new money at a 4.1% growth rate, with inflows across all regions. Group net new money was also CHF 2.5 billion because institutional and reconciliation effects offset each other.

The more striking development was efficiency. Half-year profit increased 87% to CHF 216 million, while the cost/income ratio fell ten percentage points to 67.9%. CET1 capital rose to 23.2%. Vontobel therefore delivered something the industry struggled to achieve in 2025: asset growth, revenue growth and a lower cost base at the same time.

Vontobel is best understood as an investment-led house with private and institutional distribution, not a traditional Geneva partnership. That distinction affects product depth and culture. It also explains why total AUM overstates the private-client book if used without a segment note.

6. Lombard Odier — CHF 239 billion in AUM

Lombard Odier reached CHF 239 billion in AUM at 30 June 2026, up 7% from CHF 223 billion at year-end. Total client assets, which include custody, reached CHF 367 billion. The bank attributed the AUM increase to strong net new money and investment performance, although its public release did not quantify the inflow.

The financial quality was stronger than the scale alone suggests. Net profit rose 25% to CHF 138 million, operating income increased 9%, and expenses remained stable. The CET1 ratio was 31%, more than double the stated regulatory requirement, and Fitch’s AA- rating remained a useful external check on balance-sheet strength.

Lombard Odier’s edge is the combination of managing-partner ownership, a long institutional memory and a modern investment platform. Still, the CHF 239 billion includes group investment strategies, not only private-client discretionary assets. It is comparable with total group AUM at Vontobel or EFG more than with a narrow private-banking segment.

7. J. Safra Sarasin — CHF 228.5 billion, latest verified

J. Safra Sarasin’s latest official group AUM was CHF 228.5 billion at 31 December 2025. Net new money was CHF 2.8 billion, net profit reached CHF 522.3 million and the CET1 ratio stood at 34.5%. On the reported numbers, J. Safra Sarasin combines a large wealth franchise with the highest capital ratio in this peer set.

The 2026 complication is Saxo Bank. J. Safra Sarasin completed the acquisition of a majority stake in March. KPMG describes the acquired business as carrying CHF 105 billion of AUM, making it the largest Swiss private-bank transaction since 2013. We have not added CHF 105 billion to CHF 228.5 billion. Ownership percentage, consolidation treatment, eliminations and metric definitions could all change the result, and J. Safra Sarasin had not published a comparable H1 group figure by the research cut-off.

That makes rank seven provisional and probably conservative. It also makes J. Safra Sarasin the most important disclosure to watch in the next update. The acquisition may change its scale and digital distribution reach more than any organic inflow could.

8. Edmond de Rothschild — CHF 198 billion, latest verified

Edmond de Rothschild reported CHF 198 billion in AUM at 31 December 2025, up 8% for the year and a record for the group. Net inflows were CHF 10 billion, split evenly between private banking and asset management. Operating profit reached CHF 211 million, while the solvency ratio was 19.1%.

The bank said the strong inflow trend continued into the first quarter of 2026, but it did not publish a 30 June group AUM figure by our cut-off. We therefore carry forward CHF 198 billion rather than extrapolating. That choice leaves Edmond de Rothschild narrowly above EFG in the displayed order, but a synchronized H1 table could reverse the positions.

Edmond de Rothschild remains distinct in another way: it combines private banking and asset management with a family-controlled investment ecosystem and a high-conviction style. Clients who want benchmark-like scale may look elsewhere. Clients who value concentrated investment views may find that smaller platform more coherent.

9. EFG International — CHF 196.3 billion in revenue-generating AUM

EFG’s revenue-generating AUM reached CHF 196.3 billion at 30 June 2026, up 6.2% from year-end and 21% year on year. Net new assets were CHF 5.7 billion, a 6.2% annualised growth rate that exceeded the bank’s target range. All regions were positive, led by Continental Europe and the Middle East at CHF 2.3 billion and Asia Pacific at CHF 2.2 billion.

Organic growth is the strongest part of the EFG story, but acquisitions also matter. Cité Gestion and Investment Services Group added CHF 11.7 billion over the prior twelve months. EFG completed the Quilvest acquisition on 21 July, after the H1 cut-off, and said group AUM then exceeded CHF 200 billion. We exclude that post-period event from the chart while noting it here.

EFG’s relationship-manager model gives experienced client advisers unusual autonomy. It can accelerate inflows when recruitment works; it can also increase key-person and integration risk. H1 profitability remained solid, with CHF 184.6 million of net profit, a 71.5% cost/income ratio and a 15.0% CET1 ratio.

10. Union Bancaire Privée — CHF 193.5 billion in client assets

UBP’s client assets increased 4.8% to CHF 193.5 billion at 30 June 2026. The bank linked the CHF 9 billion rise mainly to positive financial markets and the performance of managed solutions. UBP did not present a separate H1 organic net inflow figure in the public release, so the asset-base increase should not be treated as net new money.

Profit grew much faster than assets. Group profit rose 40.4% to CHF 169.4 million, while total income increased 10.4%. Operating expenses rose only 1.8% as benefits from integrating Société Générale Private Banking Switzerland and SG Kleinwort Hambros began to appear. The liquidity coverage ratio was 233.8%, and the Tier 1 capital ratio was 22.5%.

UBP and EFG remain the closest pair in the table. The headline gap was just CHF 2.8 billion at mid-year, and their metrics differ. EFG reports revenue-generating AUM; UBP reports client assets. Calling either bank definitively larger without that label would be overconfident.

What Swiss private banks by AUM cannot tell you about safety

AUM tells you how much client money sits within a franchise. It does not sit on the bank’s balance sheet in the same way as loans or securities owned by the bank. It also does not tell you how much capital protects depositors, how concentrated the credit book is, whether the bank is profitable or whether your assets are booked with the parent or a subsidiary.

Capital ratios help, but even those need labels. This peer group reports CET1, total capital, Tier 1 and solvency ratios. They are related, not identical. A higher percentage can reflect a conservative balance sheet, a different business mix or a smaller risk-weighted asset base. The Swiss bank credit-ratings comparison adds an external view, while audited financial statements remain the primary source.

For private clients, a sensible due-diligence sequence is: identify the legal entity, review capital and liquidity, check external ratings where available, understand custody and segregation, then assess the mandate and fees. Reversing that order—starting with a glossy investment presentation—creates the wrong kind of confidence.

Which bank is “best” depends on the job

A ranking of Swiss private banks by AUM cannot identify the best institution for every client. UBS leads on global reach and product breadth. Pictet and Lombard Odier offer owner-managed partnership models. Julius Baer offers listed-company disclosure with a pure wealth-management focus. EFG and UBP combine international private banking with faster-growing, acquisition-shaped franchises. Vontobel is more investment-platform driven. J. Safra Sarasin and Edmond de Rothschild bring family control and distinct strategic cultures.

For a true non-resident without a Swiss permit, the first filter is usually jurisdictional eligibility, not brand prestige. A bank may have a strong balance sheet and still decline a perfectly legitimate client because the residence, citizenship, source of wealth, business activity or expected transactions fall outside its policy. A second bank may accept the same profile but require a larger relationship or a different booking centre.

Once the model fits, compare the economics. Our analysis of Swiss private-bank minimums for non-residents explains why a published entry point and an effective onboarding threshold can differ. The private-client fee guide then separates custody, advisory, discretionary-management and cross-border costs.

If you want help applying the framework to a real profile, the Swiss account-opening service for non-residents begins with eligibility and documentation rather than a predetermined bank name.

Methodology and audit trail

Cut-off date. The research includes information publicly available by 4 October 2026. H1 means the six months ended 30 June 2026.

Inclusion rule. The core peer set is KPMG’s Swiss private-bank Big 8. UBS Global Wealth Management and ZKB are included as scale benchmarks because readers searching for the largest Swiss wealth institutions expect both names. They are labelled “benchmark” in the filter.

Ranking rule. Institutions are ordered by the latest official client asset measure they publish. The precise measure remains visible. We do not relabel custody or client assets as AUM, even when the primary keyword uses AUM as the market’s shorthand.

Currency rule. Native reported currencies are retained. UBS is not converted to CHF in the table because no conversion is needed to establish rank one and because currency translation would create false comparability. The peer chart excludes UBS and uses only reported CHF figures.

Acquisition rule. Acquired assets are included only after the reporting group publishes a consolidated figure. For that reason, we do not add Saxo’s stated asset base to J. Safra Sarasin or add Quilvest to EFG’s 30 June figure. Post-period events are discussed, not backdated.

Verification rule. Every bank-level figure links to the institution’s release or financial report. Industry context comes from KPMG/HSG, the Swiss Bankers Association and ZHAW/WealthSummit. No paid league table or anonymous media estimate determines a rank.

Frequently asked questions

The conclusion that survives the footnotes

The Swiss private banks by AUM ranking has three defensible leaders: UBS is unquestionably the scale leader, Pictet is the largest independent group by its combined management-or-custody measure, and Julius Baer provides the largest clean pure-play AUM figure among the frequently reporting private banks. Below them, the more useful story is not rank five versus rank six. It is whether asset growth came from clients, markets or acquisitions—and whether the bank converted that growth into profit without weakening capital.

That is the standard this ranking will keep. When J. Safra Sarasin or Edmond de Rothschild publishes a comparable figure, the table should change. When post-period acquisitions enter consolidated reporting, the table should change again. A reference ranking is not one that never moves. It is one that shows exactly why it moved.

References

1. UBS quarterly reporting — second-quarter 2026 results and interim report (opens in new tab)
2. Pictet Group — first-half 2026 figures (opens in new tab)
3. Julius Baer Group — 2026 half-year results (opens in new tab)
4. KPMG and University of St. Gallen — Clarity on Swiss Private Banks 2026 (opens in new tab)
5. Swiss Bankers Association — Banking Barometer 2026 (opens in new tab)