The increasing popularity of passive investment strategies causes the long-term feasibility of active investing to be questioned more often. Therefore, this research aimed to uncover whether active investors' influence on fund performance is positive and significant enough to offset the cost involved, thereby providing reasoning for active rather than passive investing. A comparative analysis of 211 actively managed funds and 191 market and industry-specific indices is performed. Security selection skills and market timing ability are captured through a model comprising of the Fama French three-factor and the Treynor and Mazuy market timing model. The sample is tested between 2005 and 2020, with 5-year sub-periods. Over the full period, active and passive returns are found to be nearly indistinguishable. However, active funds seem to excel during bearish periods, where passive funds excel in bullish periods. The standard deviation is higher overall for passive investing. This difference, however, disappears during bearish periods. The security selection skill is barely distinguishable from zero for either strategy. On the other hand, market timing ability is existent for active investors, indicating a positive effect in bearish markets and a negative effect in bullish markets. Additionally, for both investing strategies, more than 90% of the returns are explained by the movements of the general market. The most suitable investment strategy is truly determined by an investor's level of risk aversion. Nevertheless, this research found that, in general, the passive investing strategy is dominant under normal market conditions. Active investors can act on the macroeconomic developments that fuel crises. This advantage enables them to achieve returns superior to indices while preserving a lower standard deviation during bearish market conditions.