Consumer group Which? is renewing calls for adviser firms to better display their charges online, arguing "good IFAs have nothing to fear" from doing so.
It argued consumers were unable to shop around for the best deals because few were given advance indication of what they could be charged.
Which? analysed the websites of 500 IFA firms, and found 349 did not publish their fees online, while few others "clearly" displayed their fees or used illustrative examples.
Many advisers have rejected calls to display charges online, with some arguing it is difficult to give visitors an idea of cost because client circumstances vary, and others claiming it gives competitors an advantage.
Which? asked the IFAs in its survey how much it would cost to receive advice on taking a 25% lump sum from a £150,000 pension pot and invest the rest into an income drawdown plan.
Its results suggested the average cost was £2,516 - equivalent to around 1.7% of the original pot. The highest amount quoted was £7,000, or around 4.7% of the pot.
About 15% of IFAs quoted more than £4,000, Which? said.
'Sales pitch'
The group said it wanted advisers to give customers an indication of what they will pay before committing to meet advisers face-to-face, "where they could face a full sales pitch".
It called on the regulator to look at making it mandatory for firms to display fees on their websites. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) currently indicates it is ‘best practice' for IFAs to display fees online.
Earlier this month, research in the Sunday Times detected a similar trend to that published by Which?, claiming only 11 of the largest 100 IFAs in Britain displayed their charges on their websites and branding their absence a "scandal".
But others have suggested this could be to do with the reality of advising rather than any underhand tactics.
Which? has previously called on advisers to be more transparent about fees. In January last year, it claimed many of the firms it telephoned were "dodging" the fees question.
On this occasion, the organisation found almost a quarter of IFA sites (115) purported to show their fees, but most (76%) did not give enough detail to give a real indication of the price of advice.
Instead, it concluded, many sites use these pages to promote the benefits of face-to-face meetings.
Just 2% (about ten sites) published enough information including a clear breakdown of charges, while 33 sites offered a ‘key facts document' for downloading. However, of these documents, 25 did not have a suitably detailed fees page or had no fees pages at all, Which? said.
When contacted, about a third of IFAs provided a "rough idea of fees", but one in ten refused to divulge costs even during an initial telephone enquiry.
Which? executive director Richard Lloyd said: "Paying for financial advice could be one of the best investments people can make, especially if they are taking advantage of the new pension freedoms, but a lack of transparency on fees could put them off at the first hurdle.
"Good IFAs have nothing to fear by publishing fees online and we believe that if some firms can do it, then the others have no excuses. We need IFAs to be much more open about charges or the regulator should step in and change the rules."
Hargreaves Lansdown chartered financial planner Danny Cox agreed: "One of the main benefits of the [Retail Distribution Review] has been the improved transparency of adviser services, their costs and value. Not everyone wants or needs advice, but those who are considering taking advice should be able to compare costs and value much easier.
"Adviser firms complain that the financial advice industry should be considered a true profession by the investing public, but this lack of fee transparency isn't helping their cause."
