Insurance Compare
Quickly compare HK insurance products' coverage, premiums, and terms
Select 2-4 products to view coverage and terms differences. Data sourced from public information for reference only.
AXA Elevate II vs YF Rich Harvest:Define timing boundaries before comparing return paths
This compare elevate vs rich harvest page compares AXA WealthAhead II Supreme and YF Prosperous Infinity Saver on verifiable evidence: premium cadence, currency-switch timing, lock-in rules, liquidity tools, and disclosure boundaries for returns.
1-minute conclusion
- If early FX switch matters (years 1-2): YF has earlier public conversion timing.
- If you need lock-in around years 5-8: AXA publishes an earlier lock-in start.
- If you prefer 2-year premium payment: YF better fits compressed premium schedules.
- If you only want a “higher IRR” answer: Public evidence is insufficient; normalized dual proposals are required.
5 questions to answer before deciding
This prevents the common mistake of choosing a product first and rationalizing later.
Why it matters: If you plan to lock gains within years 5-8, lock-in start year changes execution feasibility.
Check first: Compare AXA lock-in from policy year 5 versus YF lock-in from policy year 10 or after premium term, whichever is later.
Why it matters: Different conversion start years change early-stage FX risk management options.
Check first: AXA discloses conversion from policy anniversary 3; YF discloses conversion from policy anniversary 1.
Why it matters: Premium term drives front-loaded cash burden and budget smoothing.
Check first: AXA publicly lists 5/10-year terms; YF lists 2/5/10-year terms.
Why it matters: Both official brochures do not provide a single normalized IRR/breakeven table for apples-to-apples comparison.
Check first: Request two proposals on normalized assumptions (same currency, age, and payment term) before using IRR.
Why it matters: Liquidity features and lock-in features solve different problems, changing your product ranking.
Check first: YF discloses premium holiday from year 2 and policy loan up to 90% of guaranteed cash value; AXA discloses policy split from year 1 and lock-in from year 5.
Stage1b gap audit
Identify decision-distorting gaps first, then add verifiable evidence.
| Gap | Observed issue | Stage1b reinforcement |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory-cost statement was oversimplified | The previous version treated levy as a flat 0.1% since 2018, missing phased rates and caps. | Added IA phased schedule: 0.04%→0.06%→0.085%→0.1%, with long-term policy caps HK$40→60→85→100. |
| Insufficient evidence for sign-before-execution checks | The page stressed stress testing but lacked explicit mapping to GL28/GL30/GL29 requirements. | Added a regulatory-guardrail table covering cooling-off timing, FNA validity, dividend-scenario disclosure, and policy-loan supplementary illustration rules. |
| Missing insurer-strength comparison dimension | The prior version compared features only, without timestamped AXA/YF public financial-strength ratings. | Added a strength-signals table with AXA (AA-/Aa2/A+) and YF (A-/A3) public ratings and release dates. |
| Service-execution risk density was low | The original risk matrix focused on returns/features, with limited operational-friction signals. | Added IA H1 2025 complaint signal (+33% YoY for life-insurance complaints) and linked it to cooling-off and loan-rate recalculation checks. |
Mid-page step: get normalized dual proposals before deciding
Before moving to signing, lock age, currency, premium term, and budget cap, then request AXA and YF proposals under the same assumptions with base/downside/stress outputs.
Key conclusions: conclusion-evidence-action
Each conclusion is tied to official evidence with a concrete next step.
Evidence: AXA WealthAhead II Supreme discloses 9 currencies with conversion from policy anniversary 3. YF Prosperous Infinity Saver discloses 10 currencies with conversion from policy anniversary 1 and once per policy year.
Implication: When early FX management matters, YF provides earlier operational windows.
Action: List planned FX conversion years in both proposals instead of relying on generic “conversion available” claims.
Evidence: AXA discloses Policy Value Lock-in from policy anniversary 5. YF discloses lock-in from policy anniversary 10 or premium term end, whichever later.
Implication: If your protection window is years 5-9, AXA fits earlier lock-in expectations.
Action: Use “earliest lock-in year” as a hard constraint instead of relying on broad marketing wording.
Evidence: AXA brochure lists 5- or 10-year premium payment terms; YF brochure lists 2/5/10-year terms.
Implication: For buyers preferring faster premium completion, YF covers short-pay setups.
Action: Calculate maximum annual premium tolerance first, then back into feasible payment terms.
Evidence: YF discloses premium holiday from year 2 for up to 4 years and policy loans up to 90% of guaranteed cash value. AXA discloses Flexi Segregation from year 1 and Value Lock-in from year 5.
Implication: Households with income volatility often prioritize payment relief; legacy planners often prioritize policy split and lock-in structure.
Action: Add a “30% income drop” stress case in proposals to compare resilience paths.
Evidence: As of 2026-02-20, the corresponding AXA and YF official brochures do not provide a single normalized IRR/breakeven matrix for direct cross-product ranking.
Implication: Any claim that one product definitely has higher IRR is beyond publicly verifiable evidence at this stage.
Action: Require normalized dual proposals plus base/downside/stress scenarios before concluding.
Evidence: AXA is earlier on lock-in and split timing, while YF is broader on short pay, early currency conversion, and premium buffering.
Implication: The same buyer may rank products differently across life stages.
Action: Define 10-year cash-flow and FX plans first, then rank products accordingly.
Evidence Table 1: core terms and features
Only publicly verifiable points are shown; unknowns are explicitly marked.
| Dimension | AXA WealthAhead II Supreme | YF Prosperous Infinity Saver | Source note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product positioning | WealthAhead II Savings Insurance Plan - Supreme (launched 2025-10-20) | Prosperous Infinity Saver (launched 2024-01-03, enhanced 2025-01-06) | AXA and YF official press releases |
| Premium payment term | 5 or 10 years | 2 / 5 / 10 years | Both official brochures |
| Issue age | 5-year pay: 0-60; 10-year pay: 0-70 | 2-year pay: 0-80; 5-year pay: 0-75; 10-year pay: 0-70 | AXA/YF brochure at-a-glance tables |
| Benefit term | Up to insured age 138 | Whole life | Both brochures |
| Policy currency count | 9 (RMB, USD, GBP, EUR, CAD, AUD, SGD, HKD, MOP) | 10 (includes CHF) | AXA and YF brochures |
| Currency conversion start | From policy anniversary 3 | From policy anniversary 1 | AXA and YF brochure feature sections |
| Conversion frequency | No explicit annual limit in public brochure (confirm in proposal) | Once per policy year | YF brochure wording + AXA disclosure boundary |
| Lock-in start | Policy Value Lock-in from policy anniversary 5 | Bonus lock-in from policy anniversary 10 or after premium term (whichever later) | AXA and YF brochures |
| Unlock after lock-in | Public brochure does not clearly state unlock waiting period | Unlock available 1 year after lock-in | YF enhancement release and brochure |
| Policy split | Flexi Segregation Option from policy year 1 | Policy split option (detailed rules in policy terms) | AXA and YF brochures |
| Premium holiday | No equivalent feature explicitly disclosed in public brochure | Available from year 2 for up to 4 years (subject to conditions) | YF brochure |
| Policy loan | Public brochure does not disclose a percentage cap | Up to 90% of guaranteed cash value | YF brochure |
| Guaranteed cash value start | Accumulates from policy year 3 | Guaranteed cash value exists, but no single public start-year matrix is shown | AXA brochure + YF disclosure boundary |
| Public IRR disclosure | No normalized public IRR table in current brochure | No normalized public IRR table in current brochure | Both brochures (as of 2026-02-20) |
| Public breakeven disclosure | No normalized public breakeven table in current brochure | No normalized public breakeven table in current brochure | Both brochures (as of 2026-02-20) |
Evidence Table 2: feature execution timeline
The same feature can have very different execution timing by year.
| Time point | AXA action | YF action | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Around policy anniversary 1 | Flexi Segregation (policy split) can be activated | Currency conversion available (once per policy year) | AXA and YF brochure timing disclosures |
| Around policy anniversary 2 | No additional dedicated liquidity trigger publicly listed | Premium holiday can be requested (up to 4 years) | YF brochure |
| Around policy anniversary 3 | Policy-currency conversion starts; guaranteed cash value accumulation starts | Currency and liquidity tools already active; execution optimization phase starts | AXA brochure + YF mechanism context |
| Around policy anniversary 5 | Policy Value Lock-in can be activated | Continue accumulation with annual conversion/withdrawal decisions | AXA brochure |
| At policy anniversary 10 or after premium term end | Mid/late-stage management with lock-in, split, and currency options | Bonus lock-in window opens (whichever later rule), unlock available after 1 year | YF enhancement release + brochure |
1) Write your target years for conversion, lock-in, and withdrawal.
2) Check if each action falls within product-allowed windows.
3) If timing misses, the issue is execution fit, not raw return.
Evidence Table 3: return disclosure and evidence strength
This table prevents unknowns from being treated as conclusions.
| Metric | AXA public view | YF public view | Evidence strength | Boundary conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total IRR (normalized basis) | No normalized table in current public brochure | No normalized table in current public brochure | Medium (official materials establish non-disclosure boundary) | No deterministic “higher IRR” conclusion is supportable. |
| Breakeven year (normalized basis) | No public normalized breakeven matrix | No public normalized breakeven matrix | Medium | Use dual proposals under identical assumptions; do not substitute third-party case snapshots. |
| Dividend volatility risk | Official page provides fulfillment ratio and total value ratio entry | Official page provides investment-strategy and fulfillment explanation entry | High (official disclosure framework) | Dividend elements are non-guaranteed; historical outcomes are not future guarantees. |
| Regulatory extra cost | Both subject to IA premium levy mechanism | Both subject to IA premium levy mechanism | High (regulator-issued rules) | Levy is phased: 0.04%→0.06%→0.085%→0.1% with long-term policy caps HK$40→60→85→100. |
Evidence Table 4: regulatory execution guardrails (GL28 / GL29 / GL30 + IA + HKMA)
These are not optional details; they are hard constraints for pre-sign and post-sign execution.
| Rule | Key requirement | Comparison impact | Executable action | Source date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IA premium levy (long-term business) | Rates moved in phases at 0.04%/0.06%/0.085% from 2018-01-01 to 2021-03-31, then 0.1% from 2021-04-01 onward, with long-term policy caps HK$40→60→85→100. | Using a flat 0.1% for historical cases can overstate or understate actual total cost. | List levy amount, levy phase, and premium payment date explicitly in proposal cost sheets. | IA press release 2017-09-22; IA page updated 2025-03-24 |
| GL29 cooling-off and delivery rules | Cooling-off lasts 21 calendar days from the day after whichever is delivered first (policy or notice); if day 21 is non-working day, deadline extends; relevant documents should normally be delivered within 9 days of issue. | Calculating only from signing date can misjudge the true cancellation window. | Record delivery timestamps for both policy and notice, then calculate the cooling-off deadline immediately. | IA GL29 (effective 2019-09-23) |
| GL30 Financial Needs Analysis (FNA) | FNA is mandatory for every new life-insurance application (except exempted products), and a signed FNA is generally valid for 12 months. | Without a valid FNA, proposal assumptions can drift away from budget, horizon, and liquidity constraints. | Request the signed FNA and cross-check all proposal assumptions against it. | IA GL30 (effective 2023-07-01) |
| GL28 participating-policy scenario disclosure | Participating-policy illustrations must show both pessimistic and optimistic investment-return scenarios, based on the 25th and 75th percentiles of the prior 3-year return distribution. | Single-scenario review understates tail risk, especially around planned withdrawal or conversion years. | Require AXA and YF proposals to show optimistic/downside/stress outputs side by side. | IA GL28 (revision effective 2023-07-01) |
| GL28 policy-loan supplementary illustration | When policy loans are involved, future values must be re-projected and warnings must state that loan rates may change with market conditions and can lead to policy lapse in severe scenarios. | Treating loans as fixed low-cost liquidity can amplify medium-term lapse risk. | Request a loan-included supplementary illustration with combined “rate-up + dividend-down” stress assumptions. | IA GL28 (revision effective 2023-07-01) |
| HKMA Linked Exchange Rate System (USD/HKD) | Convertibility Undertakings remain at 7.75 (strong side) and 7.85 (weak side), and the arrangement applies to USD/HKD only. | Even with USD-denominated policies, switching to EUR/GBP/CHF still introduces non-pegged FX volatility. | Model non-USD conversion scenarios separately instead of assuming USD/HKD peg stability applies to all currencies. | HKMA LERS page (revised 2024-06-27) |
Evidence Table 5: insurer strength and market signals
Separate company-level resilience from product-level return assumptions to avoid category errors.
| Dimension | AXA | YF | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public financial-strength ratings (latest disclosed) | AXA page discloses S&P AA- (stable, 2025-10-03), Moody’s Aa2 (stable, 2025-10-03), and Fitch A+ (stable, 2025-10-07). | YF releases disclose Fitch A- (stable, 2025-02-05) and Moody’s A3 (stable, 2026-01-28). | AXA Who We Are + YF official rating releases |
| Local RBC ratio public comparability | To be confirmed: no same-basis Hong Kong RBC ratio figure was found in directly accessible first-party sources for AXA on this page cycle. | Moody’s-related release states YF solvency ratio at 272% as of 2024-12-31 (excluding transitional arrangements). | YF release dated 2026-01-28; no reliable public same-basis AXA figure identified yet |
| Can ratings directly infer IRR ranking? | No. Ratings reflect claims-paying ability and credit profile, not future IRR of one participating product. | Also no. Ratings are context, but decisions still require normalized proposals and dividend assumptions. | Inference from rating disclosure scope + this page evidence-boundary rules |
| Market signal | Datapoint | Decision implication | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hong Kong long-term business scale (2024) | Total in-force long-term office premiums were HK$537,383m; individual life new office premiums were HK$219,883m. | This is a high-volume market, so execution errors in conversion, withdrawal, or loans compound over long durations. | IA Highlights 2024 (revised 2026-01-08) |
| Participating-business share (2024) | In non-linked individual in-force revenue premiums, participating business accounted for 85.2%. | Dividend assumptions are central decision variables, requiring downside/optimistic/stress views rather than a single-path illustration. | IA Annual Long Term Business Statistics 2024 (revised 2026-01-08) |
| Complaint signal (H1 2025) | Life-insurance complaints were 593, up 33% from 445 in H1 2024; top categories were business conduct & operations (179) and claims handling (138). | Product comparison should include post-sale execution risk, especially around withdrawals, renewal servicing, claims, and turnaround time. | IA Conduct in Focus Issue 11 (Sep 2025; page updated 2025-11-04) |
Method and applicability boundaries
This section clarifies what can be used directly and what needs proposal-level validation.
Data window: up to 2026-02-20. Tier-1 sources only (official brochures, press releases, regulator pages).
Comparison logic: evaluate executable timing (conversion, lock-in, split, payment buffer) before return illustrations.
Expression rule: any missing public datapoint is marked “requires proposal verification”.
Use when you compare feature windows, liquidity paths, and due-diligence priorities.
Not for deterministic “which one will return higher” judgments.
Minimum next step: normalized dual proposals plus one stress-test run before final decision.
Evidence Table 6: risk matrix (trigger-impact-mitigation)
Risks are only useful when mapped to executable mitigation actions.
| Risk | Trigger | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overweighting a single IRR number | Using third-party snapshots without normalized proposals | May buy a product misaligned with holding horizon, causing later cash-flow stress | Require base/downside/stress proposal outputs with explicit assumptions. |
| Misreading lock-in windows | Treating “lock-in available” as immediately available | Unable to execute in planned year and miss risk-control window | Add “earliest lock-in year” as a mandatory pre-sign checklist field. |
| Unverified FX conversion frequency/costs | Knowing conversion exists but skipping frequency/process/recalculation checks | Execution costs exceed expectations and strategy underperforms | Ask for a 3-year conversion execution sample with constraints listed. |
| Ignoring premium-payment stress | No simulation for income drop or major family expenses | Mid-term payment disruption or forced reduction lowers long-term value | Run at least a “30% income drop” scenario and compare holiday/loan usability. |
| Assuming historical dividend realization equals future return | Ignoring non-guaranteed nature and market cycles | Expected return misses can disrupt education/retirement plans | Stress-test downside scenarios against the same target cash-flow plan. |
| Miscalculating cooling-off deadline | Using signing date + 21 days instead of GL29 “day after first delivery” rule. | Can miss cancellation window and create avoidable cost or disputes. | Keep delivery evidence for policy and notice, then recalculate deadline under GL29 on the same day. |
| Treating policy loans as fixed low-cost financing | Skipping GL28-required supplementary illustrations and loan-rate reset scenarios. | When loan rates rise alongside weaker dividends, cash value can erode and trigger policy lapse. | Require a combined “rate-up + dividend-down” loan stress illustration before deciding loan size. |
| FNA assumptions not aligned with proposal | Not checking whether FNA remains within 12-month validity under GL30 or whether assumption gaps are explained. | Product selection may drift from true budget and horizon constraints, increasing execution stress later. | Map FNA date, signatures, budget, and proposal parameters item by item; require written explanation for any mismatch. |
Action guidance: choose your first step by scenario
Do not ask “which is best” first; ask “which path fits my constraints best”.
Best first step: Place YF Prosperous Infinity Saver as candidate #1, then request normalized side-by-side proposals.
Why: Public materials show 2-year payment and conversion from year 1.
Watchouts:
- Later lock-in window (year 10 or premium-end) may not fit early lock-in goals.
- Breakeven still requires proposal validation; do not assume it is always faster.
Best first step: Place AXA WealthAhead II Supreme as candidate #1 first.
Why: Public materials show Value Lock-in from year 5 and Flexi Segregation from year 1.
Watchouts:
- If you need 2-year premium or earlier FX conversion, evaluate AXA timing constraints.
- You still need normalized proposals to fill IRR/breakeven evidence gaps.
Best first step: Compare “premium holiday + policy loan + reduced paid-up feasibility” before IRR.
Why: YF publicly discloses premium holiday and loan cap; AXA publicly emphasizes split and lock-in structure.
Watchouts:
- Policy loan increases burden and should not replace long-term budgeting.
- Any premium pause requires explicit resumption rules.
Best first step: Not recommended. Use this page as a screening framework, then complete normalized proposals and clause checks.
Why: Public materials lack a unified IRR/breakeven matrix, so final return ranking cannot be concluded directly.
Watchouts:
- Skipping proposal comparison amplifies decision error over time.
- Run at least one downside cash-flow stress test before signing.
Minimum executable checklist before signing (copy to your advisor)
- Normalize both proposals by age, currency, and payment term before comparing IRR/breakeven.
- Record earliest lock-in year and unlock waiting period in your decision sheet.
- Verify conversion start year, frequency, execution path, and post-conversion value recalculation rules.
- Model a 30% income-drop scenario to test premium holiday/loan needs.
- Request years 1-10 surrender/withdrawal value paths to evaluate early-exit costs.
- Verify non-guaranteed dividend assumptions and request downside/stress versions.
- Confirm regulatory levy is modeled with phased rates (0.04%→0.06%→0.085%→0.1%) and policy-level caps.
- Record policy and notice delivery timestamps, then calculate the 21-day deadline under GL29 based on first delivery.
- Verify FNA is within its 12-month validity and check proposal parameters match the FNA.
- If policy loan may be used, request GL28-style supplementary illustrations with rate-up assumptions and lapse warnings.
- If switching to non-USD currencies, model non-pegged FX volatility separately instead of extrapolating USD/HKD peg stability.
- Complete one integrated simulation table covering conversion + withdrawal + lock-in before signing.
Frequently asked questions (16)
Focused on real decision questions rather than glossary-style filler.
Sources and update policy
All key conclusions are traceable to official sources with explicit dates.
- AXA: WealthAhead II launch press release (2025-10-20)
Used for: Launch date and core features (9 currencies, conversion, lock-in, segregation)
Date: 2025-10-20
- AXA: WealthAhead II Supreme brochure (EN)
Used for: Payment term, issue age, currencies, feature start years, guaranteed cash value start
Date: 2025-10
- AXA: Fulfilment Ratios and Total Value Ratios
Used for: Official disclosure entry for fulfillment and total value ratios
Date: 2025-07 (page marked 2024 policy year disclosure)
- YF: Prosperous Infinity Saver launch release (2024-01-03)
Used for: Launch timing and initial feature positioning
Date: 2024-01-03
- YF: Prosperous Infinity Saver enhancement release (2025-01-06)
Used for: Upgrade to 10 currencies and lock-in/unlock rule updates
Date: 2025-01-06
- YF: Prosperous Infinity Saver brochure (SC)
Used for: Payment terms, issue age, conversion frequency, premium holiday, policy-loan cap, lock-in rules
Date: 2025-01
- YF: Investment strategy and fulfillment information page
Used for: Fulfillment ratio entry point and disclosure context
Date: Accessed 2026-02-20
- AXA Hong Kong: Who We Are (financial strength ratings)
Used for: AXA-published S&P / Moody’s / Fitch ratings with dates
Date: As displayed on page (as of 2025-10-07 entries)
- YF: Fitch affirms rating at A- (stable) (2025-02-05)
Used for: YF Fitch rating signal and timestamp
Date: 2025-02-05
- YF: Moody’s affirms A3 rating (2026-01-28)
Used for: YF Moody’s rating and disclosed solvency-ratio datapoint (272%)
Date: 2026-01-28
- Hong Kong IA: levy arrangement page
Used for: Current levy rule (0.1% + HK$100 cap per policy) and page update date
Date: Page updated 2025-03-24
- Hong Kong IA: levy phased-schedule press release (2017-09-22)
Used for: Phased schedule 0.04%→0.06%→0.085%→0.1% and caps HK$40/60/85/100
Date: 2017-09-22
- IA Guideline GL28 (participating scenarios and loan supplementary illustrations)
Used for: Optimistic/pessimistic scenarios (25th/75th percentile) and loan-rate/lapse warning requirements
Date: Revision effective 2023-07-01
- IA Guideline GL29 (cooling-off period)
Used for: 21-day cooling-off calculation, non-working-day extension, and 9-day delivery rule
Date: Effective 2019-09-23
- IA Guideline GL30 (Financial Needs Analysis)
Used for: Mandatory FNA requirement for new policies and 12-month validity
Date: Effective 2023-07-01
- Hong Kong Monetary Authority: Linked Exchange Rate System (LERS)
Used for: USD/HKD convertibility band at 7.75-7.85 and applicability boundary
Date: Page revised 2024-06-27
- IA: 2024 long-term business statistics highlights (PDF)
Used for: 2024 market-scale data such as in-force and new-office premiums
Date: Revised 2026-01-08
- IA: annual long-term business statistics (market structure)
Used for: Participating-business share (85.2% in 2024) and structural context
Date: 2024 dataset (revised 2026-01-08)
- IA Conduct in Focus Issue 11: complaint statistics explainer (article 1)
Used for: H1 2025 life-insurance complaints +33% YoY for execution-risk awareness
Date: Issue date 2025-09; page updated 2025-11-04
Methodology & Sources
E-E-A-T notes: methodology, sources, and author details.
Methodology
We normalize by currency, payment term, and sample age using official brochures/proposals. IRR and returns are illustrative (non-guaranteed) and used for relative comparison only.
Authoritative Sources
- Insurance Authority (HK) Annual Report
- Insurance Authority (HK) Statistics
- AIA Hong Kong
- Manulife Hong Kong
- Prudential Hong Kong
- FWD Hong Kong
- Sun Life Hong Kong
For other insurers, please refer to their official sites and latest product materials.
Author
Author: Su Jiang (GXBIBI research team). Content is based on public materials and policy terms.
Need Professional Analysis?
Everyone's financial situation and goals are different. Contact us for personalized advice.
Scan to add WeChat for consultation
• Free product proposal
• One-on-one Q&A
• HK visit booking assistance
Calibration note: this page prioritizes first-party official sources and labels evidence boundaries for unsupported claims.