Even taking Vanguard's quoted transaction fees at face value is interesting - really highlights the difference between passive and active - active have far higher 'hidden' costs in addition the elevated OCF.
Vanguard sends a monthly email, which is often worth a quick read IMO. I'll try to dig out the link, but as often quoted, on average, active funds slightly underperfom passive trackers. What was interesting to me was that the average net performance of active funds actually outperformed the market - it was purely the fees that turned this outperformance to underperformance. Particularly disappointing to me regarding the active funds, at times of 'market stress' when you might hope an active manager might cushion the blow a bit, the underperformance of active funds was often at its worst. All statements 'on average' of course - many here have done well from managers who perform above average.
I think the great performance of US tech mega-caps has made life hard for active managers. Whether this will continue, or whether active becomes more use should this change, of course remains to be seen. having said that, passive small caps funds, for example, have had very large gains post-Covid crunch. I personally do intend to hold some active funds going forward (I already have a modest proportion of such in my company pension), but I'll definitely have a good selection of trackers so I can be sure how well (or badly) they are really doing. And I'll be looking very carefully at the 'hidden costs' not included in the OCF......
Edit: article with plot of active net/inc costs:
https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/articles/latest-thoughts/investing-success/how-to-build-a-portfolio-part-four