The IRS reports a 2026 401(k) employee limit of $24,500, up from $23,500, and an IRA limit of $7,500, up from $7,000, in its newsroom release IR-2025-111 dated 13 November 2025. Those are the figures most worth checking before you act on anything else here. The savings-by-age benchmarks that readers search for are a separate matter: they come mainly from financial firms, state different assumptions and disagree with one another. The limits do not alter them.
This article is written as of the research's most recent source date, which the research gives only as roughly three days before 22 October 2026. That leaves the currency of the 2026 limits unconfirmed by this article, so the figures should be checked against the IRS page on the day you read them. Where a figure rests on a secondary source, the text says so.
The U.S. retirement-account rules here are not an AI or software topic, and this piece is a departure from the publication's usual focus. Its relevance to this readership is narrower: many people who build and sell software have employer plans with these limits, and the benchmarks are simple models whose assumptions can be inspected, which is a habit worth bringing to any forecast.
The 2026 limits, as reported and pending a direct check
The IRS newsroom release gives the 401(k) employee limit as $24,500 and the IRA limit as $7,500. The 401(k) catch-up for workers aged 50 and over is $8,000. The IRA catch-up for workers aged 50 and over is $1,100, which the IRS catch-up page also reports. The research did not retrieve the IRS pages themselves, so every one of these figures needs a direct check against irs.gov before it is used.
The combined employee-plus-employer cap of $72,000, up from $70,000, is reported by McAfee Taft. The research's note on this figure is that it is the section 415(c) annual additions limit and excludes catch-ups. The research did not confirm it against IRS text, so it is best treated as a secondary-source figure until checked.
Catch-up contributions at 50 and at 60 to 63
Catch-ups are the extra amounts workers aged 50 and over may add above the standard limit. The 401(k) catch-up for ages 60 to 63 is reported by the IRS as $11,250, higher than the standard $8,000 for those 50 and over. The age window matters: a saver who turns 64 drops back to the standard catch-up, so the higher figure is available only in that window.
The IRS catch-up page reports SIMPLE plan catch-ups of up to $4,000 in 2026, with $5,250 at ages 60 to 63. The research notes that some applicable SIMPLE plans use a $3,850 figure. Because each plan type has its own ceiling, a saver with both a 401(k) and an IRA should check each limit separately rather than adding them into one number.
The Roth catch-up rule for high earners
Several advisers report a 2026 rule that catch-up contributions must be made as Roth for people whose FICA wages exceeded $150,000 in the prior year. The research cites TurboTax, Principal and related adviser commentary, and the rule is described as applying to employer plans only. The IRS text was not retrieved, so the rule stands as reported rather than confirmed.
The practical effect is a tax-timing choice. Roth contributions are made with after-tax money, so the saver gives up the immediate deduction in exchange for tax-free qualified withdrawals. That trade-off is how Roth accounts work in general; the sources here do not test it for any particular saver. Anyone with prior-year wages near the threshold should confirm the rule with their plan administrator before relying on it.
Why the savings benchmarks conflict
Benchmarks take two forms. Salary multiples state how much to have saved by a given age. Percentage guidance states how much to set aside each year. Both depend on assumptions the headline number does not show.
Thrivent suggests having 1 to 2 times salary by 35 and 3 to 4 times by the late 40s, according to its retirement savings page. Popular Bank suggests saving 5 to 10 percent of income in the 20s and 10 to 15 percent in the 30s and 40s. The research treats these percentages as guidelines, not established fact. Secondary reporting of Fidelity's framework gives 1 times salary by 30, 3 times by 40, 6 times by 50, 8 times by 60 and 10 times by 67. Those multiples have not been checked against Fidelity's own table. Western & Southern is omitted from the figures here because its page could not be confirmed in the research.
Fidelity's guidance shows one concrete source of the gap. Its guidelines page, as described in the research, assumes a 15 percent savings rate, retirement at 67 and a plan that runs through age 93. A benchmark built on those inputs will ask for a different balance from one that assumes a 10 percent rate, retirement at 65 or a shorter planning horizon. The research does not show whether the secondary multiples use the same inputs, so a reader comparing them with Fidelity's guidance should not assume the two match. The research also did not establish whether the 15 percent figure includes the employer match, which changes how it applies to a reader who relies on one.
The practical reading is that a multiple is a conclusion drawn from a set of inputs. Change the retirement age or the return assumption and the required multiple moves. Use the benchmarks as a rough check against your own inputs, not as a target.
Starting early: the arithmetic and its assumption
Compounding is arithmetic under an assumed return. Kiplinger's example, as reported in the research, puts $10,000 invested at 30 at about $106,000 by 65 at a 7 percent return, against about $38,000 from 45. Those figures are close to what a 7 percent annual compounding model gives: 35 years multiplies the balance by about 10.7, and 20 years by about 3.9.
The Digital Calculator illustration puts $200 a month from 25 at about $479,000 by 65, against about $226,000 from 35. The research's check reproduces the $479,000 and about $227,000 figures only if contributions are added once a year at year end, for $2,400 a year. Under monthly contributions the 40-year total comes to about $525,000, so the convention changes the answer materially. The 25-year-old contributes ten more years of $2,400, which is $24,000 more in contributions. Most of the remaining gap is growth on those early years.
The Edward Jones example, which a brief asked for, is omitted. A rough check using monthly contributions of $550 over 35 years at 7 percent gives about $1 million, close to the source's $990,000 figure, so the omission is not because the figure is wrong on arithmetic. The research did not confirm that source's assumptions, and the article does not rely on it.
Both examples depend on a 7 percent return, which is an assumption and not a forecast. Real returns vary year to year, and a lower return shrinks the gap between early and late starters in dollar terms while leaving the ordering unchanged.
Social Security full retirement age
Secondary sources give full retirement age for Social Security as 67 for people born in 1960 or later. The Social Security Administration's own page was not retrieved, so the rule is reported rather than confirmed. The percentage reductions for claiming early or increases for claiming late are secondary-sourced and were not checked, so they are not given here.
Does an employer match count toward the benchmark?
The research does not answer this. It did not verify how 401(k) match formulas work or whether each benchmark counts the employer contribution toward its target. As a general principle, a match counts toward a savings target only if the benchmark defines savings to include it, and a benchmark that counts it will call for a lower personal contribution. Read the plan document for the match formula, and check each benchmark's definition of savings before comparing your rate with its figure.
What to check first, and whether you are on track
The research does not supply a test for whether a given saver is on track. A workable first step is to compare your current balance and contribution rate with a benchmark whose inputs you have checked against your own situation. Note the rate you contribute, whether it includes the match, and the retirement age and return the benchmark assumes. A benchmark that assumes a retirement age you do not plan to reach is not a fair comparison.
Evidence assessment
Strong: the 2026 IRS figures for the 401(k) employee limit, the IRA limit and the 401(k) and IRA catch-ups are attributed in the research to official IRS sources. The research did not retrieve those pages, so the figures are strong only as reported official figures, and they remain to be checked directly.
Moderate: the compounding arithmetic, which reproduces under stated conventions (annual or monthly contributions and a 7 percent assumed return). Fidelity's stated guideline assumptions, as described on its guidelines page, are moderate because they come from a single page the research did not retrieve. The SIMPLE plan catch-up figures are moderate pending a direct check.
Weak or preliminary: the $72,000 combined cap, reported by McAfee Taft. The Roth catch-up rule for prior-year FICA wages above $150,000, reported by advisers and not checked against IRS text. The Fidelity-style multiples, reported secondhand. Popular Bank's percentage ranges, which the research labels as guidelines. The Social Security full retirement age of 67, reported by secondary sources.
Unknown: how these U.S. rules apply outside the United States; how employer match formulas are defined and counted; Medicare timing; withdrawal rates; current average and median balances by age, where sources conflict; and the Roth IRA phase-out ranges, which this article omits.
Practical implications
Check the 2026 limits on irs.gov before you change a contribution, because the figures here are reported and the research did not confirm them against the IRS pages. Then check what your plan does with the employer match. If you are not contributing enough to receive the full match under your plan's formula, that is a question to settle first, using the plan document rather than any benchmark.
If you are in the 60 to 63 window, confirm your eligibility for the higher catch-up figure with your plan administrator. If your prior-year FICA wages exceeded $150,000, ask your administrator whether catch-ups in your plan must be Roth before you plan around the rule.
On emergency savings and high-interest debt, the research supplies no source. This is editorial reasoning: a small cash buffer and high-rate debt usually come before long-horizon investing, after any employer match you can capture. Your own circumstances may reverse that order.
Limitations and open questions
The most important limitation is that none of the IRS, SSA or Fidelity pages was retrieved, so the research supports only reported figures. The benchmark multiples and percentages come from firms with an interest in the topic, use different inputs and have not been reconciled. Balance-by-age averages conflict across sources and are left out. The compounding examples are hypothetical. The rules described are U.S. rules and may not apply to readers elsewhere. Settling the open points requires direct checks of the IRS pages, Fidelity's multiples table, the SSA's full retirement age page and the plan documents for employer match formulas.
Editor's take
The 2026 limits are the most reliable figures in this piece, because they are attributed to the IRS and match the form of a regulatory announcement. They are still not checked against the IRS text, so the right step is to verify them directly before acting on them. The benchmarks are less reliable. They are useful as a set of inputs to compare against your own assumptions, and they are weak as targets.
The starting-early result is arithmetic. Under any positive return, money contributed sooner has more years to compound, and the sources reviewed agree on that direction. The dollar size of the gap is a different matter, because it depends on the return and on the convention used for contributions, and the two cited examples use different conventions.