When people compare active vs passive strategies, they need to focus on what their requirements are vs post fee outcomes. If you have little conviction in being able to pick active managers who are worth their fees over time, then perhaps a more logical approach is to choose a cheaper passive strategy (which may or may not be in an ETF wrapper). If however you are confident that the active manager you have chosen will fulfill your objectives over time (notwithstanding that equity/alts managers will rarely achieve their performance objectives year in, year out), then that may be the best outcome for you. It should be recognised however that not all strategies are at their most effective in a passive format, and many are unavailable altogether. A blend of passive and active (which you are doing), can be quite sensible as it allows you to get cheaper exposure in markets that are highly efficient and where managers find it more difficult to outperform but also allows active full reign to those areas where passive is less useful or unavailable.
It should also be remembered that active manager performance against relevant benchmarks is often cyclical. You need to assess whether or not an active managers under-performance is structural or episodic. It shouldn't be a signal to jump to a passive strategy.
