Annuity Sales by Product Type

The Market at a Glance

Total U.S. annuity sales have more than doubled since the post-financial-crisis trough and set consecutive records in 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025. The composition of those sales, however, looks nothing like it did a decade ago. Variable annuities once dominated the industry; today, fixed products account for the majority of new premium.

Table 1: Total U.S. Annuity Sales by Product Type (In Billions)

Sources: LIMRA Secure Retirement Institute full-year reports; 2025 figures are LIMRA preliminary (published February 12, 2026). Wink, Inc. figures track closely (2025 total: $449B). Figures are rounded to nearest billion and represent U.S. individual annuity sales. Totals may vary slightly across reporting sources due to methodology differences. Verify current figures at limra.com.

The table tells a clear story. Fixed-rate annuities more than tripled between 2021 and 2025 as rising interest rates made guaranteed products far more competitive. Fixed indexed annuities climbed past $125 billion, making FIAs the second-largest product line behind fixed-rate. RILAs, barely a category in 2015, now outsell many traditional VA providers. Variable annuity sales, meanwhile, have dropped by roughly 35% from their pre-pandemic levels.

Total Annuity Assets

The installed base of annuity assets in the United States exceeds $3 trillion when combining reserves under insurance company management across all product types (variable annuity separate accounts, fixed annuity general account reserves, and indexed product reserves). That figure has grown from approximately $1.2 trillion in 2002 to $2 trillion by 2007, $2.2 trillion by 2011, and past the $3 trillion mark in recent years. The ICI reports annuity reserves outside of retirement accounts at approximately $2.6 trillion as of Q3 2025; the broader figure includes annuity assets held within IRAs and qualified plans. The growth reflects both new sales and investment returns on existing contracts, partially offset by benefit payouts and surrenders.

For advisors, the asset base matters as much as annual sales. Trillions of dollars sitting in older contracts represent a massive servicing and review opportunity. Many of those contracts were sold under fee structures and benefit designs that differ substantially from what is available today. A systematic review of existing annuity holdings, especially contracts older than seven to ten years, often reveals upgrade opportunities that benefit the client.

Fixed-Rate Annuities: The Rate Environment Changed Everything

The story of fixed-rate annuity sales over the past five years is essentially the story of interest rates. When the Federal Reserve held short-term rates near zero through 2021, fixed-rate annuities struggled to compete with the yield expectations that even conservative investors carried. Multi-year guaranteed annuities (MYGAs) offered rates below 2%, and advisors had little reason to recommend them over Treasury securities or bank CDs.

That changed dramatically in 2022 and 2023. As the Federal Reserve raised rates to a target range of 5.25% to 5.50%, MYGA rates followed. By 2023, three-year MYGAs were crediting rates above 5%, and five-year contracts exceeded that in many cases. Fixed-rate annuity sales responded accordingly, roughly doubling from their pre-rate-hike levels.

The competitive position of fixed-rate annuities against bank CDs and government securities rests on several structural advantages. First, annuity interest compounds tax-deferred, which means the effective after-tax yield exceeds a comparably rated CD for investors in higher tax brackets. Second, the standard deviation of returns inside a fixed-rate annuity is zero: the credited rate does not fluctuate during the guarantee period. Third, the contract can be converted to a lifetime income stream at the owner’s election, an option no CD or Treasury bond offers. Fourth, annuity assets pass directly to named beneficiaries, avoiding probate.

These advantages do not disappear when rates eventually decline. Advisors who position MYGAs only when rates are “high” miss the structural case for the product. The rate environment determines how competitive the annuity yield is relative to alternatives, but the tax deferral, zero volatility, and income conversion features are permanent.

Variable Annuities: A Smaller but Evolving Market

Variable annuity sales peaked at $184 billion in 2007, dropped to roughly $128 billion in 2009, recovered to the $145-158 billion range during 2011-2013, and settled at $140 billion in 2014. The decline since then reflects several forces: fee compression across the broader investment industry, competition from lower-cost alternatives like RILAs, regulatory scrutiny of high-cost products, and insurers exiting or scaling back their VA businesses due to the capital costs of guaranteeing living benefits.

Today, variable annuity sales run in the range of $60 to $70 billion annually. That is still a large market, but the product’s share of total annuity sales has dropped from roughly 60% a decade ago to under 15%.

Table 2: Top Variable Annuity Sellers (Recent Rankings)

Source: Morningstar, LIMRA. Rankings shift quarterly. Verify current standings at morningstar.com/annuities. Several major insurers have exited or significantly reduced VA sales: Hartford stopped new annuity sales in 2012; MetLife has been in wind-down mode since approximately 2013, including a $10 billion VA risk transfer to Talcott Re in December 2025.

One development worth watching: a growing number of VA contracts now come in fee-based (I-share) versions designed for advisory accounts. These products eliminate the traditional commission structure and carry lower ongoing fees, typically with M&E charges reduced to 0.20% to 0.50% compared with the 1.00% to 1.40% range common in commission-based contracts. For advisors operating under a fiduciary standard or Regulation Best Interest, the I-share option addresses many of the cost concerns that drove clients away from VAs.

The variable annuity market also remains important because of the massive existing asset base. Billions of dollars remain in older contracts with benefit structures, fee levels, and investment options that may no longer serve client interests. Reviewing legacy VA contracts against current alternatives is one of the most productive exercises an annuity-focused advisor can undertake.

Fixed Indexed Annuities: A $128 Billion Category

Fixed indexed annuities have grown from a niche product in the late 1990s to a $128 billion category, making them the second-largest annuity product line behind fixed-rate. The appeal is easy to grasp: FIAs offer principal protection (the account value cannot decline due to index performance) combined with interest credits linked to stock market index movements. In a world where clients want equity participation without equity risk, the product proposition resonates.

The FIA market has also evolved in sophistication. Early products used simple annual point-to-point crediting tied to the S&P 500. Today, contracts offer a range of crediting methods (monthly averaging, performance trigger, multi-year point-to-point) tied to a variety of indices, including proprietary volatility-controlled indices designed by major banks. Cap rates, participation rates, and spread structures vary widely across carriers, making product comparison a genuine analytical exercise rather than a simple rate check.

Advisors evaluating FIAs should focus on the distribution phase as much as the accumulation phase. The key questions include how the income benefit base grows, what withdrawal percentage applies at different ages, whether the contract requires annuitization to access the income guarantee, and how the insurer has historically managed renewal rates and caps. A product that illustrates attractively during accumulation but delivers poorly during distribution is a product that creates client disappointment.

Registered Index-Linked Annuities: The Fastest-Growing Category

RILAs (also called structured annuities or buffer annuities) represent the fastest-growing segment of the annuity market. Sales have grown from $3.7 billion in 2015 to $79.6 billion in 2025, a more than twentyfold increase in a decade.

The product occupies a space between variable annuities and fixed indexed annuities. Like VAs, RILAs expose the contract owner to some downside market risk. Like FIAs, they limit that downside through buffer or floor mechanisms. A common structure provides a buffer absorbing the first 10% to 20% of index losses in exchange for a cap on upside participation. Another structure uses a floor, where the investor bears losses only beyond a specified percentage (for example, losses beyond -10%).

RILAs have captured market share from both VAs and FIAs because they offer a middle path that appeals to a broad swath of pre-retirees and early retirees. The fees are typically lower than traditional VAs, the upside potential is higher than FIAs, and the downside protection, while not absolute, covers the range of market declines clients find most psychologically difficult to tolerate.

For advisors, the critical skill in the RILA space is helping clients understand what they are giving up in exchange for what they are gaining. A 10% buffer sounds protective until the market declines 30% and the client absorbs a 20% loss. Conversely, a 15% cap sounds limiting until the client realizes they captured 15% in a year the index returned 25%. The math is simple. The behavioral expectations around that math are where advisory value lives.

Living Benefits: Still the Dominant Rider

Living benefit riders remain a central feature of variable annuity and, increasingly, fixed indexed annuity sales. Historically, 85% or more of VA contracts included some form of living benefit guarantee (a figure well documented through the mid-2010s), though the share has likely declined as the product mix has shifted toward fee-based, accumulation-focused, and RILA-alternative contracts.

The two most common structures are the guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefit (GLWB) and the guaranteed minimum accumulation benefit (GMAB). GLWBs guarantee a minimum annual income stream (typically 4% to 6% of a benefit base, depending on the owner’s age at first withdrawal) regardless of how the underlying investments perform. GMABs guarantee that the contract value will be at least equal to a specified amount after a defined holding period, typically seven to ten years.

Advisors comparing living benefit products should focus on several critical variables. First, does the contract require annuitization to activate the income guarantee, or can the owner take systematic withdrawals? This distinction matters enormously: annuitization surrenders control of the remaining account value, while systematic withdrawals preserve access to the balance. Second, how does the benefit base grow during the deferral period? Some contracts credit a simple roll-up rate (5% to 7% annually is common in older designs, though current rates are often lower), while others use a ratchet mechanism that locks in market gains periodically. Third, can the income stream be turned on and off, or must it continue once started? Fourth, does the insurer apply an age setback when calculating lifetime income, effectively increasing the assumed life expectancy and reducing annual payments?

The best approach for comparison shopping is to request hypothetical illustrations from several carriers using identical assumptions: the same initial investment, the same index allocation, and the same time horizons. Compare the guaranteed minimum income at year 5, year 10, and year 15, and compare the projected income under moderate growth scenarios. The gap between the best and worst products at the same price point can be substantial.

What the Sales Trends Mean for Practice

Three patterns in the current data deserve attention from practicing advisors.

The first is the rotation from variable to fixed products. This is not just a rate-driven phenomenon. It reflects a broader client preference shift toward products with more certainty and less complexity. Advisors who built their practices around variable annuities in the 2000s and early 2010s need to develop fluency with MYGAs, FIAs, and RILAs to remain relevant.

The second is the rise of fee-based annuity distribution. As more advisors operate under fiduciary or best-interest standards, the demand for commission-free annuity products will continue to grow. Understanding how I-share VAs, advisory FIAs, and fee-based RILAs fit within a planning engagement is becoming a core competency, not a niche skill.

The third is the sheer size of the existing asset base. More than $3 trillion in annuity assets (including variable annuity separate accounts and fixed annuity reserves) are under contract across the United States. Many of those contracts were sold five, ten, or fifteen years ago under different rate environments, different fee structures, and different living benefit designs. Systematic review of existing annuity holdings, using current product standards as the benchmark, is one of the highest-value activities an annuity-focused advisor can perform.

Key Takeaways

1. Fixed-rate annuities tripled between 2021 and 2025 as rising interest rates made MYGA products competitive. Position the structural advantages (tax deferral, zero volatility, income conversion) rather than just the current rate, so the recommendation holds when rates decline.
2. RILAs grew from $3.7 billion in 2015 to $80 billion in 2025. Help clients understand the buffer/floor trade-off by modeling specific loss scenarios rather than describing the concept abstractly.
3. Variable annuity sales dropped roughly 35% from pre-pandemic levels, but the multi-trillion dollar installed VA asset base represents a massive review opportunity. Contracts older than seven to ten years often carry fee structures and benefit designs that no longer serve client interests.
4. Fee-based annuity distribution (I-share VAs, advisory FIAs, fee-based RILAs) doubled from 2020 to 2024. Developing fluency with advisory annuity products is becoming a core competency for advisors operating under fiduciary standards.
5. Before recommending any living benefit rider, request hypothetical illustrations from several carriers using identical assumptions and compare guaranteed minimum income at year 5, 10, and 15. The gap between best and worst products at the same price point can be substantial.

Sources and Notes: Sales figures compiled from LIMRA Secure Retirement Institute annual reports (2023 final, 2024 final published March 2025, 2025 preliminary published February 12, 2026) and cross-referenced with Wink, Inc. Q4 2025 data. Carrier rankings reference Morningstar annuity research. Annuity asset base figures from ICI Quarterly Retirement Market Data (Q3 2025) and LIMRA industry estimates. Figures are rounded to nearest billion and represent U.S. individual annuity sales. Advisors should verify current data directly with LIMRA (limra.com) and Morningstar (morningstar.com). Data on this page will be refreshed annually following publication of year-end industry reports.