Now the panicked last-minute depositing into ISAs is over for the 2012/13 tax year, many of us will be thinking about the best strategy for the new tax year.

The ISA allowance for 2013/14 is £11,520, half of which (£5,760) can be saved into a cash account. Wouldn’t it be nice to get into the habit of saving regularly rather than be flustered into finding the best account or investment at 5pm on 5 April next year?

Depositing a single lump sum as early as possible is the best way to maximise tax breaks on a cash ISA. However, this is not necessarily the case with a stocks and shares ISA. where the benefits of drip-feeding can outweigh the lump sum option.

Daniel Godfrey, chief executive of the Investment Management Association, says this method of saving is not only less of a burden but it reduces risk: You can buy more units if the price falls and less as it rises, which is known as pound-cost averaging.

Many investment experts agree. Tom Stevenson, head of corporate and investment writing at Fidelity, says trying to time the market is not a wise move; he also sees the merit of the lower volatility that pound-cost averaging brings.

Shaun Port, chief investment officer at online investment manager Nutmeg.com, says there is more to it however. He thinks the discipline of saving monthly is a good habit because you have to ignore daily market fluctuation and stick to your plan to reach your long-term goals.

He thinks the strategy works particularly well for new investors, who are often put off by market news and a bewildering range of investment options. Buying regularly eliminates the continual decision: ‘is this the right time to buy?’, says Port. Regularly buying equities during a market downturn is psychologically challenging, but often very rewarding, he adds, pointing out that most lump-sum style investors would have held back during the financial crisis, which has since proved to have been a great time to buy: the FTSE All-Share has produced a return of more than 90% since 6 April 2009.

Indeed, it is difficult to find any advocate of lump-sum investing. Tim Cockerill, head of collectives research at stockbroking firm Rowan Dartington, calls drip-feeding a good, fairly painless way of building up a portfolio. He thinks the best strategy is to have an even split of your money going into each fund in your portfolio every month, otherwise investors all too often chase the funds doing best, which isn’t always the correct policy. An even distribution keeps the portfolio stable.

The biggest challenge to drip-feeding is the discipline required. The regular saver must put aside his or her money irrespective of where the market is, says Cockerill, which many investors find tough.

Stevenson says it is also important not to under-save, as stashing away some extra money each month can make a massive difference to your total return, if you can afford it. While investing £50 a month over 15 years to create an ISA worth £11,764.30 (assuming a 1.5% annual management charge and a 5% annual growth rate) seems decent, figures from Fidelity show that by upping that amount by just £10 a month an investor could stand to gain an additional £2,352.86.

It is important to remember when it comes to investing that every little helps. This is due to the magic of compounding, which means even a small amount can make a big difference, he says. At the extreme end, Fidelity’s research shows investing an extra £20 (so £70 in total) over 30 years could top your ISA up by £12,688.25.

And even for investors who can’t afford to put more aside each month, just making a regular saving can pay dividends. Nutmeg.com calculates that drip-feed ISA savers may have banked £5,318 more over the past 10 years than their end-of-the-tax-year lump-sum investor counterparts.

Port says someone investing £10,000 a year over that period would have seen returns of up to 5.3% more, which is equivalent to six months worth of saving. After five years the return would have been 3.1% more than someone who waited until the end of each tax year to make their investment. Port says for those investors using low-cost tracker funds rather than active fund managers the gain would have been even larger due to the lower fees.