Offering a competitive retirement plan is one of the smartest moves an employer in the nonprofit, education, or healthcare sector can make for attracting and retaining talent. For organizations evaluating 403(b) partners in 2026, the marketplace includes long-established annuity specialists, large mutual-fund houses that also serve 403(b) plans, and newer recordkeepers focused on transparent pricing and modern plan administration. Below you’ll find a practical list of the ten 403(b) providers we recommend recruiters and HR teams evaluate — what they do best, where they typically fit, and what to watch for when comparing them. The selections are informed by recent industry surveys and provider comparisons and reflect firms that continue to show broad adoption, deep product suites, scalable plan services, or standout technology for participants.
The 10 providers featured in this guide
- TIAA
- Fidelity Investment
- Vanguard
- Voya Financial
- Empower Retirement
- Ascensus
- Corebridge Financial (formerly or including AIG annuity lines)
- AIG / VALIC (where still used in some markets)
- Lincoln Financial Group
- Human Interest
(Why these ten? they represent the range of annuity-focused, mutual-fund-centered, recordkeeper-first, and employer-friendly platforms organizations most frequently see in 403(b) lineups and marketplace reports in 2024–2025 and into 2026.)
How to Use this List
When helping a hiring organization evaluate 403(b) options, consider these practical priorities: administrative burden and vendor support for HR/payroll; the breadth and cost of investment choices for employees (including availability of low-cost index funds and Roth 403(b)); participant experience (mobile access, advice, education); recordkeeping and reporting sophistication; and whether the provider supports the plan design features the employer needs (matching, auto-enrollment, safe-harbor features, contribution schedules). Tools and comparison sites exist to help compare fees, annuity terms, and fund menus — but plan selection should always include a live demo of the recordkeeping platform and a review of sample participant statements and employer reporting.
1) TIAA
TIAA has long been synonymous with retirement services for education and nonprofit employees. Its historical strength is in traditional guaranteed annuity products and a large stable of variable annuities and mutual fund solutions tailored to institutions like colleges, universities, and hospitals. For organizations with a large employee base or complex legacy annuity balances, TIAA’s institutional experience, financial strength, and deep product shelf make it an obvious candidate to evaluate. Many employers choose TIAA because it can support both annuity-style contracts and mutual fund options, and because it has an established network of advisors who understand the unique regulatory and fiduciary nuances of 403(b) plans.
That said, TIAA’s scale can translate into a more traditional approach to plan administration compared with some newer recordkeepers. Employers should ask TIAA to demonstrate participant mobile experiences, the process for integrating payroll platforms, and how legacy annuity funds are handled when consolidating or streamlining a plan. When comparing TIAA to mutual-fund-first providers, focus on whether your employees value the security of guaranteed annuity features, or whether they prefer access to low-cost index funds and simplified investment lineups.
2) Fidelity Investments
Fidelity is widely used in higher education and nonprofit sectors for its broad mutual-fund lineup, robust participant tools, and national advisor network. For employers and participants who want a familiar investing environment (mutual funds and index options), Fidelity often stands out because of its depth of investment choices, retirement planning tools, and account servicing capabilities. Its strength is particularly evident for participants who prefer self-directed investing with access to an enormous funds menu, planning calculators, and integrated financial advice services.
From an employer standpoint, Fidelity’s recordkeeping and reporting tools are competitive, and many institutions choose Fidelity when they want to offer both fund-based 403(b)(7) options and a high-touch participant experience. Employers should request a detailed walkthrough to understand fee structures for advisory services, the menu of low-cost index funds available in the 403(b) plan, and how Roth 403(b) implementation works within their payroll cadence.
3) Vanguard
Vanguard is best known for low-cost index funds and an investor-first philosophy that emphasizes cost transparency. For 403(b) plans that prioritize keeping participant investment expense ratios low, Vanguard is a natural contender. Many nonprofit and educational employers look to Vanguard when their primary goal is to maximize the long-term retirement accumulation of employees through low-cost passive strategies and a straightforward fund line-up.
Vanguard’s participant experience tends to be straightforward — not always the flashiest, but highly functional and cost-efficient. Employers should evaluate Vanguard on the practicalities of recordkeeping integration, whether the plan will offer Vanguard’s institutional share classes, and how participant education and advisory services are provided, particularly for employees who want more hands-on planning help.
4) Voya Financial
Voya has positioned itself as a retirement-provider option with a focus on modern plan administration and participant engagement. It offers both annuity products and mutual-fund-based investment options, and it has invested in digital tools that help participants track progress and receive guided planning information. Voya is often selected by organizations that want a provider capable of handling annuity contracts while also offering contemporary participant-facing tools.
For employers concerned about service responsiveness and communication, Voya typically scores well in plan-administration discussions; however, as with any provider that manages both annuities and fund lineups, it’s important to clarify which investment vehicles and share classes will be available in the employer’s specific plan. Ask for examples of employer reporting, automatic enrollment implementation, and how they support in-service rollovers or distributions when employees change jobs.
5) Empower Retirement
Empower has become a major player in the retirement recordkeeping space and is notable for the breadth of administrative technology it offers. Empower is attractive to employers looking for a modern, scalable recordkeeping platform with strong payroll integrations, data reporting, and participant education tools. It’s frequently chosen by larger institutions that need robust plan administration alongside a broad investment menu of third-party fund options.
Where Empower stands out is in its emphasis on analytics, plan dashboards, and streamlined processes for plan sponsors. Employers should evaluate Empower on implementation timelines, how the platform handles employer contributions and reconciliation, and the specifics of advisory or managed account services for employees who want guided wealth management in addition to DIY investing.
6) Ascensus
Ascensus is primarily known as an independent recordkeeper and administrative specialist for retirement plans, including 403(b)s. It often serves employers who want a dedicated administration partner with expertise in compliance, complicated plan designs, and custom reporting. Ascensus tends to appeal to organizations that need flexible plan designs or who are consolidating multiple legacy providers into a single administrative platform.
As a recordkeeper-first firm, Ascensus partners with investment managers and annuity providers to construct a fund lineup that suits the plan sponsor’s needs. Employers should probe Ascensus for sample plan crosswalks (showing how legacy funds would map to new options), service-level commitments for participant inquiries, and how the firm supports compliance testing, nondiscrimination rules, and auditing processes.
7) Corebridge Financial
Corebridge (which emerged from legacy structures involving large annuity businesses) is a familiar name in 403(b) universes where guaranteed accounts and group annuity products are still in demand. Employers that want the security of an insurer-backed guaranteed option alongside variable fund offerings may find Corebridge’s product mix attractive. Its solutions are often chosen by institutions that have employees who value principal-protection features or guaranteed-income components in retirement.
When evaluating Corebridge, recruiters and HR teams should clarify whether the plan line-up will be heavily annuity-weighted, what surrender or withdrawal rules apply to guaranteed accounts, and how the employer’s fiduciary responsibilities are supported through plan documentation and sample participant communications.
8) AIG / VALIC
AIG’s retirement subsidiaries (often still operating under familiar brand names such as VALIC in certain markets) continue to be used by many school districts and non-profit employers due to their historical presence and annuity product offerings. AIG/VALIC can be particularly relevant for employers with long-standing relationships or existing legacy contracts; their products often include fixed and variable annuity options alongside advisory services.
Because annuity contracts can carry different cost and liquidity profiles than mutual funds, employers should pay close attention to the terms of any annuity product — guaranteed rates, surrender periods, and how in-plan transfers work. For employers considering a move away from legacy annuities to a more fund-centric lineup, a conversion or consolidation roadmap and communication plan for impacted employees are essential.
9) Lincoln Financial Group
Lincoln Financial provides both annuity products and investment options designed for retirement plans, and it’s commonly included on 403(b) vendor lists for institutions that seek a balance between insurer-backed solutions and modern participant services. The firm’s experience with institutional clients and its product shelf can be helpful for plan sponsors who need a mix of investment vehicles.
Evaluate Lincoln for the specific balance it offers between guaranteed and market-based investments, its recordkeeping capabilities for the plan size you manage, and its approach to participant education and financial advice. As with other insurers, closely review contract language and sample participant statements to understand how benefit illustrations are presented and what fees or charges may apply.
10) Human Interest
Human Interest represents a newer breed of retirement provider that emphasizes transparent pricing, a clean user experience, and simplified administration for employers — especially smaller nonprofits, charter schools, and mid-sized organizations. While historically 403(b) administration could be complicated by annuity contracts and legacy arrangements, Human Interest focuses on modern recordkeeping, straightforward fund menus, and tools that make enrollment and payroll integration less painful.
Smaller employers often appreciate providers like Human Interest because they reduce administrative overhead and make plan participation simpler for employees. When assessing Human Interest or similar modern recordkeepers, confirm whether they support the specific 403(b) plan structures you require (annuity vs. fund options), what investment families are available, and how they handle regulatory compliance and plan audits on behalf of the employer.
Practical Evaluation Checklist for Employers (and Recruiters Advising Them)
1. Service model & SLAs: Ask for sample service-level agreements covering payroll reconciliation, participant calls, and error-resolution timelines.
2. Investment menu & costs: Confirm availability of low-cost index funds, share classes, and the precise fee structure participants will see.
3. Technology & integrations: See a live demo of the employer portal, participant app, and payroll integrations. Check whether the vendor supports automated deferrals, Roth 403(b), and easy re-enrollment.
4. Plan administration & compliance: Request examples of plan documents, testing reports, and support for ERISA/403(b) compliance tasks (note: ERISA status varies by plan type).
5. Participant support & education: Review the vendor’s approach to onboarding, financial education, and retirement advice, including costs for managed-account services.
Using a comparison tool or asking multiple vendors to respond to an RFP with the same sample plan assumptions is a reliable way to surface differences in administrative fees and participant expenses.
Final Thoughts
Choosing a 403(b) provider in 2026 isn’t just about brand recognition — it’s about matching the vendor’s strengths to the employer’s priorities. Large institutions often prefer the deep bench and annuity offerings of incumbents like TIAA or an all-in-one recordkeeper such as Empower, while smaller nonprofits may prioritize transparent pricing and straightforward administration from firms like Human Interest or Ascensus. Mutual-fund-centric employers seeking to minimize long-term expenses for participants will often lean toward Fidelity or Vanguard. In every case, require a clear implementation plan, vendor references from similar organizations, and a walk-through of the participant experience before committing.
