Excessive complexity and poor disclosure are the biggest barriers to individuals getting advice on whether they are paying too much for insurance, a head of research said.
Chant West head of research Ian Fryer said it is very difficult for even a qualified adviser to judge whether a client's fund premiums are competitive for them, let alone the average consumer.
He described it as a "minefield", saying members are not on a level playing field when it comes to competitiveness.
"You can't say ‘this fund is cheap' because it might be cheap for an older blue collar male but expensive for a younger white collar female," he said.
"There's a lot of cross-subsidising going on, especially in non-profit funds, where males tend to get a good deal at the expense of females."
Industry funds and some public sector funds tend to charge younger members more so that their older members pay less.
Fryer's comments come as Chant West released a 2014 superannuation fund insurance survey, which quantifies and compares the differences between fund premiums.
The survey used modelling to show the market competitiveness of each fund overall, and also by member occupation, gender, age and smoker status.
"Advisers can use the information in the survey tables to cut through all the obscurity and tell their client if the fund they're in represents good value for them and, if not, which other funds they might consider," Fryer said.
The survey showed there is a huge gap between the cheapest and most expensive insurance. For instance, a 40-year-old female worker in a while collar job may pay $120 a year for $300,000 of death and disability cover in the cheapest fund, and $767 in the most expensive fund.
A white collar male may only pay $76 at the cheap end, and $767 at the top end.
