Riester and Ruerup are neither good nor bad but narrowly targeted. Riester is strong with children and low income, Ruerup with self-employment and high income. Outside these groups costs often outweigh — then the flexible ETF is wiser. Calculate your case, not the ad.
Saving: Riester vs Ruerup
The state subsidises two private pensions, each for its group: Riester suits families with children and low income, Ruerup the self-employed and high earners. For others an ETF is often better.
✓ Verified: 18/07/2026
WHAT TO DO
› Details and tips
👨🏻💻
Max recommends:
We have two children — Riester suddenly paid off: the child subsidies covered nearly half the annual contribution. Without children I would have gone with an ETF.
👩🏼💼
Lea recommends:
Before Riester/Ruerup demand a breakdown of all costs (acquisition, admin). An expensive contract eats the subsidy — compare net return with a simple ETF over the same period.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Who really benefits from Riester? ▾
Families with children and low earners: the child subsidy (up to 300 € per child a year) and base subsidy can cover most of the contribution. Childless high earners almost never.
How does Ruerup differ from Riester? ▾
Ruerup (basic pension) targets the self-employed and high earners: a large tax deduction now, but payout only as a lifelong annuity, no capital access or free inheritance.
Why are they often criticised? ▾
Because of high product fees and inflexibility. The subsidies are real but sometimes eaten by costs. Outside the target group an honest ETF plan often delivers more.