Betashares Australia 200 ETF vs Fidelity Australian High Conviction Active ETF
Overlap is estimated from the funds' listed top holdings, not their full constituent lists. Where there are no shared listed holdings it is shown as not reliably estimable.
A200 and FHCO are highly similar Australian Broad Market ETFs, with approximately 89% estimated (estimated, limited data) holdings overlap. A200 has the lower management fee (0.04% vs 0.85% p.a.).
Betashares Australia 200 ETF
BetaShares
Fidelity Australian High Conviction Active ETF
Other
Comparison scores reflect how each ETF compares to the other on these specific dimensions only. They are not absolute ratings or recommendations.
Key differences at a glance
Neither A200 nor FHCO is the "right" pick for everyone; it comes down to what you want from the holding. Where they differ most:
Green highlights the leading comparison score, the factually lower fee, or the higher scale or income figure. Performance is never highlighted. Data from issuer disclosures, reviewed quarterly; sector and geography figures for some funds are category-inferred estimates, clearly labelled on each fund's page.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
Cost (management fee): A200 has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
Fund size (assets): A200 is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
Holdings breadth: A200 spreads exposure across more holdings (A200 201, FHCO 29); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
Income (distribution yield): A200 distributes approximately 3.3% and FHCO approximately 0%; A200 carries the higher estimated distribution yield. A higher yield may suit an income focus; a lower one may suit a growth or tax-efficiency focus. Yields are estimates and are not guaranteed; past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
General information only, not financial advice. ETFLens does not hold an AFSL. Always read the relevant PDS and consider seeking advice from a licensed financial adviser.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns or distributions.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Top shared holdings ranked by overlap contribution, the smaller of each company's weight in the two funds. Basis: estimated, limited data.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures. Where a fund does not publish full holdings, its list is not shown here (a category-based estimate appears on the fund page).
A200 top holdings
FHCO top holdings
This issuer does not publish full holdings for this fund, so they are not shown here.
Sector weights for FHCO are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
A200 sectors
FHCO sectors
Geographic weights for FHCO are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
A200 geography
FHCO geography
Whether A200 or FHCO fits comes down to your goals, time horizon and what you already hold. The clearest differences are summarised near the top of this page, with the full data below.
A200 and FHCO have approximately 89% estimated holdings overlap (estimated, limited data). This is considered high overlap, estimated from listed top holdings rather than the full constituent lists.
A200 has the lower management fee. A200 charges 0.04% per year ($4 per year on a $10,000 investment) and FHCO charges 0.85% per year ($85 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $81 per year per $10,000 invested.
A200 (Betashares Australia 200 ETF) manages approximately $9.5B and FHCO (Fidelity Australian High Conviction Active ETF) manages approximately $2.1M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
You can hold both, but with approximately 89% estimated holdings overlap the two funds hold a high proportion of the same companies, so holding both means paying two sets of management fees on largely the same exposure. Whether that suits you depends on your own objectives.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. A200 charges 0.04% and FHCO charges 0.85%, so A200 has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 89% estimated holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors above and consider each fund's Product Disclosure Statement and Target Market Determination.
General information only. This comparison and the ETFLens tools on this page provide general information about two exchange-traded funds and do not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. It is not personal financial product or investment advice. ETFLens does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). Holdings overlap is calculated from each fund's published holdings (full lists where the issuer publishes one, listed top holdings otherwise), and fee data is sourced from fund manager PDS documents and updated quarterly. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. Consider each fund's Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) and Target Market Determination (TMD), and seek advice from a registered tax agent or licensed financial adviser, before making investment decisions.
Check your portfolio overlap
See how these ETFs interact with your other holdings.
Open overlap checker →Build your portfolio
ProModel a portfolio with these ETFs and see projected fees and income.
Build a portfolio →Check the CGT cost of switching
ProBefore consolidating overlapping ETFs, model the capital gains tax impact with the ETF Switch Calculator.
Calculate CGT cost →View full ETF profiles
Holdings, fees, sectors and distributions for each fund.
A200 full profile →FHCO full profile →A200 in-depth review →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →