Safe Withdrawal Rate Chart by Retirement Length and Success Rate

3.9%. That's the starting withdrawal rate Morningstar's latest research says holds up in 90% of simulated futures over a 30-year retirement. If you came here for a safe withdrawal rate chart, start with that number. Then look at what moves it: a longer retirement, a stricter success target, a different stock mix. Each one changes your answer, and the chart below shows by roughly how much.

One caution first. Each figure here answers a specific question under specific assumptions. None of them is a promise. Treat them as odds.

The short answer

• 30-year retirement, 90% success, 30–50% stocks: about 3.9% as a starting withdrawal, raised for inflation each year. That's Morningstar's 2026 base case, up from 3.7% the year before (Morningstar, What's a Safe Retirement Withdrawal Rate for 2026?; allocation details via Retirement Living).
• Looking only at history: Bill Bengen, who came up with the original 4% rule, now puts his historical safe rate at 4.7% (Robert Huebscher).
• If your spending can flex: Morningstar's research says flexible withdrawal strategies can push starting rates as high as 5.7% (Corporate Adviser).

Three studies, three numbers. They aren't contradicting each other. Each is answering a different question.

Safe withdrawal rate chart: what the major studies found

Most charts online show one or two dimensions at a time. Some plot retirement length against portfolio. Others plot allocation against success target. The table below lines up the major findings by all three, so you can compare them directly.

Sources: Morningstar; Huebscher and Mezzi on Bengen; Journal of Financial Planning, Aug 2015; The Poor Swiss, Updated Trinity Study; Corporate Adviser.

These studies used different data, different methods and different definitions of success. So use the table to see which direction each factor pushes the rate. Don't read it as one consistent grid. If you want more detail on a single dimension, Portfolio Charts shows 15-, 30- and 45-year rates for 21 portfolios across 12 countries. Morningstar Australia's chart of the week plots allocations against success targets from 50% to 100%.

How retirement length changes the number

Longer retirement, lower safe rate. The portfolio has to last through more years, more inflation and more chances of a bad stretch in the market.

The 40-year results make this clear. In The Poor Swiss's update using data from 1871 to 2025, most portfolios with less than 100% stocks came in below 90% success over 40 years. Over 30 years, many of those same portfolios did fine. Those ten extra years are where many plans fail.

That matters even if you aren't retiring early. Social Security's planning guidance says about one in three 65-year-olds may live to at least 90 (Social Security Administration, Retirement Information for Medicare Beneficiaries, 2026). If you retire at 62, a 30-year plan gets you to 92, and many people live longer than that. A plan that ends at 85 is quietly betting you won't be one of them. That's why the plan you build at Monte Climb runs to age 95 by default, and you can push it further.

How your success target changes the number

"Safe" depends on how much risk you accept.

Morningstar's 3.9% is set at a 90% success rate. Bengen's 4.7% is set to survive the worst start year in the historical record. And his average across all start years was about 7%. The same history can support 4.7% or 7%. It depends on whether you plan for the worst case or the average one.

Here's how the success target and the rate relate:

• Higher target (95–100%) → lower starting rate. More cushion, less spending.
• Morningstar's 90% target → 3.9% for a 30-year retirement.
• Lower target (75% or below) → higher starting rate. More spending, and you'll probably need to cut back if markets go badly.

Neither end is the right one. It depends on how much flexibility you have and how you'd feel about cutting spending in a bad decade.

Stock allocation: the third axis

Allocation changes the picture too, though the research disagrees on the size of the effect.

Morningstar's base case uses a fairly conservative 30–50% equity mix. The 2015 Trinity update assumed lower future returns. Under those assumptions, a 4% withdrawal over 30 years succeeded 64% of the time with 50% stocks and 73% with 75% stocks. So more stocks helped, but neither result came close to 90%. The 1871–2025 update, which uses actual historical returns, gave 100% stocks at 3.5% better than 98% success.

The takeaway: the return assumptions matter as much as the allocation. Assume lower future returns and every cell in the chart gets worse.

Historical backtests vs. Monte Carlo

This is where much of the disagreement between studies comes from.

Historical backtesting asks: if you'd retired in each past year, would your money have lasted? It's grounded in real events, but it only has a limited number of past retirements to test.

Monte Carlo simulation asks: if we generate thousands of possible futures, with good years and bad years in random order, in how many does your money last? Bengen's 4.7% comes from history. Morningstar's 3.9% comes from simulated futures built on forward-looking assumptions.

Which is more conservative? Kitces found that 6.5% of Monte Carlo scenarios were worse than the worst historical scenario (Kitces). That suggests simulation reaches bad outcomes history hasn't produced yet. Others, such as Compound Ladder, argue Monte Carlo can underweight sudden crashes. The honest answer is that both methods have blind spots. Looking at both is better than relying on either.

What "90% success" actually means

This part gets skipped a lot. A 90% success rate means that in 1 out of 10 simulated futures, the money runs out before the plan ends.

That doesn't mean you're broke at 70. Failures in these models often happen late. But it's a real 10% chance, not zero. "Success" usually just means the balance never hit zero. It says nothing about whether you ended with a lot left over or almost nothing.

That's why a probability tells you more than a single average-return projection. An average gives you one line on a graph. A probability shows how wide the range of outcomes is.

Why a chart can't be your plan

Every safe withdrawal rate chart assumes a tidy retirement: fixed spending raised for inflation, one portfolio, one start date. Real retirements are messier.

• Social Security and pensions cover part of your spending, which changes how much your portfolio has to provide.
• Health care costs aren't a rounding error. Fidelity estimates a 65-year-old retiring in 2025 will spend $172,500 on Medicare premiums, deductibles and prescriptions over retirement, and that doesn't include long-term care (Fidelity Investments, 2025 Retiree Health Care Cost Estimate, Jul 2025).
• Spending isn't flat. Being willing to spend less in bad years is what gets Morningstar's flexible strategies to 5.7%.
• Most people haven't defined the target. EBRI found only 52% of workers have estimated the monthly income they'll need in retirement (EBRI/Greenwald Retirement Confidence Survey 2025, Fact Sheet 3).

The chart gives you a reasonable starting point. You still need to run your own situation.

Run your own numbers

You can do that at Monte Climb. Enter three numbers: your age, what you've saved and what you spend each month. We run them through 1,000 simulated futures and tell you how many stay funded. Medicare premiums and income-based surcharges are charged year by year instead of as a flat guess. It runs in your browser, and nothing is saved until you choose to save it.

Then ask William, our AI planner, the follow-up questions: Am I on track? Can I retire at 62? What's a sustainable spend? He shows his work.

It's planning software, not advice. The result is a probability, not a promise, but it's based on your numbers.

Show my answer →

Frequently asked questions

What is the safe withdrawal rate for 2026?

Morningstar's 2026 base case puts it at 3.9%, up from 3.7% the year before. That figure assumes a 30-year retirement, a 30–50% stock allocation, and a 90% chance your money lasts.

Is the 4% rule still safe?

It depends on the assumptions. Bengen's updated historical work supports 4.7% for a diversified portfolio. Morningstar's forward-looking simulations come in slightly below 4%, at 3.9%. A 2015 Trinity update that assumed lower future returns found 4% over 30 years succeeded only 64–73% of the time, depending on how much was in stocks.

How does retirement length affect the safe withdrawal rate?

The longer the retirement, the lower the safe rate. In an updated Trinity study using data from 1871 to 2025, most portfolios with less than 100% stocks fell below 90% success over 40 years, even though many held up over 30.

What does a 90% success rate mean?

In 9 out of 10 simulated or historical scenarios, your money lasted to the end of the plan. In the other 1 out of 10, it ran out. It's a probability, not a guarantee.

Is Monte Carlo or historical backtesting more reliable?

Each method has blind spots. Kitces found 6.5% of Monte Carlo scenarios were worse than the worst historical case, so simulation can be more conservative. Some critics argue it underweights sudden crashes. Looking at both gives you a fuller picture.