GHHF and DHHF are both Betashares all-growth, all-in-one funds built from the same idea: 100% shares, diversified across Australian, global developed and emerging markets, no bonds. The difference is a single structural decision. DHHF holds that portfolio one-for-one at 0.19% p.a.. GHHF holds a near-identical allocation and then borrows internally against it, targeting a loan-to-value ratio of 30-40%, which works out to approximately 1.43x to 1.67x exposure per dollar invested, at 0.35% p.a. plus borrowing costs. Gearing magnifies gains and losses in both directions.
See live data and the fee difference side by side in our GHHF vs DHHF comparison tool.
Key findings
- Both funds target roughly the same all-growth mix: on an exposure basis, approximately 37% Australian shares with the remainder in global developed and emerging markets, based on each fund's published holdings, reviewed quarterly.
- GHHF gears that portfolio internally with a target LVR of 30-40% (approximately 1.43-1.67x exposure). DHHF is ungeared. Gearing magnifies both gains and losses, and deepens drawdowns in falling markets.
- GHHF charges 0.35% p.a. against DHHF's 0.19% p.a., and GHHF's borrowing costs are additional to its MER, reflected inside fund returns rather than billed separately.
- DHHF listed in 2020; GHHF listed in 2024 and its registered name includes the words "Complex ETF" for a reason: the product design is materially different from an ungeared index fund.
The two funds attract the same search for a reason: GHHF is frequently described as "geared DHHF", and on the allocation numbers that shorthand is close to accurate. That makes this comparison unusually clean. It is not about which portfolio is better constructed, they are nearly the same portfolio. It is entirely about whether internal gearing belongs in your position at all, and what it costs.
At a glance
| GHHF | DHHF | |
|---|---|---|
| Full name | Betashares Wealth Builder Diversified All Growth Geared (30-40% LVR) Complex ETF | Betashares Diversified All Growth ETF |
| Structure | Internally geared fund of ETFs | Ungeared fund of ETFs |
| Target gearing | 30-40% LVR (approx. 1.43-1.67x exposure) | None |
| MER | 0.35% p.a. (borrowing costs additional) | 0.19% p.a. |
| Fund size (Q2 2026) | $310.6M | $1.3B |
| Distributions | Semi-annually | Quarterly |
| Trailing yield | approximately 2.1% | approximately 2.2% |
| Listed on ASX | 2024 | 2020 |
Yields are trailing distribution yields as at each fund's most recent data; distributions vary and are not guaranteed. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Nearly the same portfolio underneath
Strip out the gearing and the two funds look like siblings, which they are. Both are funds of ETFs blending Australian shares, global developed markets and emerging markets to a 100%-growth allocation. On an exposure basis (what your dollar is actually exposed to, after gearing), both land at approximately 37% Australian shares, with the majority of the remainder in global developed markets and a mid-single-digit slice of emerging markets, per each fund's published holdings file, reviewed quarterly.
The building blocks differ in brand rather than substance: DHHF assembles its global sleeve largely from US-listed funds, while GHHF uses Betashares' own ASX-listed building blocks, including a partly currency-hedged global sleeve. The result is that GHHF carries some AUD-hedging of its global shares where DHHF is unhedged, a second-order difference that matters far less than the gearing itself.
What internal gearing actually does
GHHF combines investor capital with fund-level borrowing, targeting a loan-to-value ratio of 30-40%. In plain terms: for every $1 you invest, the fund aims to hold approximately $1.43 to $1.67 of the underlying portfolio. The fund manages the loan internally, at institutional borrowing rates, and rebalances the gearing as markets move so the LVR stays inside its band.
The consequences are mechanical, not a matter of opinion:
- Both directions. If the underlying portfolio rises 10%, a 1.5x-geared version rises approximately 15% before costs; if it falls 10%, the geared version falls approximately 15%. Gearing has no view about direction.
- Deeper drawdowns. A fall that an ungeared all-growth portfolio experiences as painful, a geared version experiences materially worse, and rebalancing the gearing in a falling market can lock in some of that damage (selling assets to maintain the LVR band).
- Higher volatility all the time. The day-to-day swings are larger in both directions, permanently, not just in crises.
- Borrowing costs. The loan is not free. Interest costs are additional to the 0.35% p.a. MER and are reflected in the fund's returns. When borrowing rates are high, the hurdle the portfolio must clear before gearing adds anything is higher.
None of this is hidden: the fund's own registered name includes "Geared (30-40% LVR) Complex ETF". The PDS sets out the risks in detail and is the document to read before going anywhere near a geared product.
Fees: the visible cost and the invisible one
The visible comparison is straightforward:
The invisible cost is the borrowing: GHHF pays interest on its internal loan out of fund assets, on top of the MER. The all-in cost of holding GHHF is therefore meaningfully higher than the headline fee gap suggests, and it moves with interest rates. Model the visible fee difference over decades in the ETFLens Fee Analyser.
Performance so far, read carefully
As at each fund's most recent data, GHHF's reported one-year total return was approximately 22.6% against DHHF's 14.5%. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns, and that single year is close to a textbook illustration of gearing in a rising market: the underlying portfolios were nearly identical, and the gap between the two numbers is largely the leverage doing exactly what leverage does. In a falling year the same mechanism would have produced a gap in the opposite direction. GHHF listed in 2024, so it has no three- or five-year history yet; DHHF's three-year figure is approximately 12.8% p.a. as at its most recent data. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Distributions
DHHF distributes quarterly with a trailing yield of approximately 2.2%; GHHF distributes semi-annually with a trailing yield of approximately 2.1%. Distributions from both vary period to period and are not guaranteed, and geared funds' distributions can be lumpier because financing and rebalancing flow through the trust. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Which one suits which type of investor
DHHF may suit investors who want a single all-growth fund they can hold through full market cycles without leverage, and who value the simpler cost structure and the longer track record.
GHHF may suit investors who have deliberately decided they want moderate, internally managed gearing, understand that both gains and losses are magnified and that borrowing costs reduce returns, and have read the PDS's risk section in full.
These are factual descriptions of how each product is built, not recommendations. Geared products sit at the aggressive end of the risk spectrum; the "Complex ETF" label exists precisely because the behaviour of a geared fund in a falling market surprises people who bought it in a rising one.
The bottom line
GHHF versus DHHF is not really a fund comparison, it is a leverage decision wearing a fund comparison's clothes. The underlying portfolios are approximately the same all-growth mix. DHHF delivers it plain at 0.19% p.a.. GHHF delivers approximately 1.43-1.67x of it at 0.35% p.a. plus borrowing costs, with the deeper drawdowns and higher volatility that mathematically follow. The right starting point is not "which returned more last year" but "do I want internal gearing at all", and that question is answered by your circumstances and risk tolerance, not by either product page.
See the full side-by-side breakdown: fees, size, structure and live data.
Compare GHHF vs DHHF on ETFLens →General information only. Not financial advice. This article does not consider your personal financial situation, objectives or needs. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. Geared investments magnify losses as well as gains and can experience significant volatility; read the PDS risk section carefully. MER and fund size data sourced from each issuer's published disclosure documents, reviewed quarterly. Index constituents and portfolio allocations change over time; always check the current PDS for the most recent fee and holdings information before investing. ETFLens does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence. Always read the relevant PDS and consider seeking advice from a licensed financial adviser (AFS licence holder) before making any investment decisions.