There are many, however as I said above in the post
73826916
one need to understand why someone doing it after fee but with dividend reinvestment.
See, the fund who provides performance after fees and without dividend reinvestment would be better as it purely shows the growth achieved by funds not the dividend reinvestment component.
What Wilson is doing and I explained earlier that S&P / ASX 200 or 300 or small cap or whichever index you take will provide their performance without fees so he simply removing fees to make a sense based on comparing apple to apple. The fee component then eat in your profit as explained by the Index themself and i provided that screenshot in the same comment above.
That is why I personally look at total return i.e. what gets into your hand after everything and easy to get that is through sharesight share checker tool.
To show you how misguided your about this performance before or after fees illogical comparison just look below. This doesn't mean WAM is better as this is based on past performance but the point is if someone simply invested by looking at the performance calculated based on after fee then they are wrong s this two fund did worst then Wilson over 20 year.
So there are many who did better then Wilson, but the point I am making is that before fee or after fee performance calculations isn't the only matrix one should rely upon. The total return to you what it matters doesn't matter how much fee they charge, how they calculate their marketing material (i.e. after fee etc.).
(20min delay)