Just a warning... by now, almost everyone with a 401k seems to sagely recommend you look at your expense ratios. This does not escape the marketers' attention.
There are SEVERAL primary places to look for fees, and only one of these fees, the expense ratio, is likely to be particularly low at this point.
John Hancock, in a plan I was in, had expense ratios that were all better than the Vanguard equivalent offered in the same plan. However, they kept 10-12% of the money in cash, which amounts to not investing 10-12% of your money so they can loan it out for profit, instead. This should be considered a fee of over 1%.
Then add the expense ratio, but be careful to use the plan's prospectus - you can't look up the fund, because Hancock, at least in my plan, used a shifty "sub-account" feature whereby you didn't invest directly in funds, you invested in Hancock accounts directed to invest in funds (only, they would not invest everything, and expense ratios magically favored Hancock). Then add the administrative fees, generally over 1% (as in this plan, but they were listed in multiple parts). Plus the service event fees, if you incurred any...
Without a match, I wouldn't invest in a Hancock plan. 3% on 100k is $3000, but not one-time. That 3k is going to get taxed out every year you're in the plan. Basically, you can't just calculate what you save the year you put it in - you have to also calculate what you keep losing on all the money you already have in there.