Several recent studies have cited the theoretical work of Valdez et al. [Insur: Math Econ 39(2):251–266, 2006] as evidence that there is less adverse selection in tontine-style products than in conventional life annuities. We argue that the modeling work and results of Valdez et al. [Insur: Math Econ 39(2):251–266, 2006] do not unconditionally support such a claim. Conducting our own analyses structured in a similar way but focusing on the relative instead of absolute change in annuity vs. tontine investments, we find that an individual with private information about their own survival prospect can potentially adversely select against tontines at the same, or even higher levels than against annuities. Our results suggest that the investor’s relative risk aversion is the driving factor of the relative susceptibility of the two products to adverse selection.