Betashares Australia 200 ETF vs VanEck Australian RMBS ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap. General information only.
A200 may suit cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees. RMBS may suit investors seeking income and dividend distributions.
Scored across Cost, Scale, Diversification, Income and Performance. General information only, not financial advice.
See full breakdown ↓General information only, not financial advice.
Overlap is calculated from each fund's full published holdings list. Where there are no shared listed holdings it is shown as not reliably estimable.
Betashares Australia 200 ETF
BetaShares
VanEck Australian RMBS ETF
VanEck
Comparison scores reflect how each ETF compares to the other on these specific dimensions only. They are not absolute ratings or recommendations. General information only, not financial advice.
A200 and RMBS are both Australian Broad Market ETFs: A200 tracks the Solactive Australia 200 Index and RMBS tracks the . A200 has the lower management fee (0.04% vs 0.29% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair. General information only, not financial advice.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
A200 charges 0.04% p.a. and RMBS charges 0.29% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
A200 manages $9.5B and RMBS manages $28.68M; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
A200 holds 201 positions and RMBS holds 89; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
A200 distributes approximately 3.3% (Quarterly) and RMBS approximately 4.85% (Quarterly); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Over the compared period A200 returned 8.6% and RMBS returned 4.7%. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Green highlights the factually lower fee or higher scale/income figure. Performance is never highlighted. Data from issuer disclosures, reviewed quarterly.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. Past distributions are not a reliable indicator of future distributions. General information only.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures. General information only.
A200 top holdings
RMBS top holdings
Sector weights for RMBSare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
A200 sectors
RMBS sectors
Geographic weights for RMBSare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
A200 geography
RMBS geography
A200 scores 7.7/10 and RMBS scores 5.5/10 on this comparison. A200 has the higher overall comparison score.
A200 may suit investors who: cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees.
RMBS may suit investors who: investors seeking income and dividend distributions.
A200 and RMBS do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page. General information only, not financial advice.
A200 has the lower management fee. A200 charges 0.04% per year ($4 per year on a $10,000 investment) and RMBS charges 0.29% per year ($29 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $25 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
A200 (Betashares Australia 200 ETF) manages approximately $9.5B and RMBS (VanEck Australian RMBS ETF) manages approximately $28.68M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
A200 and RMBS do not share enough listed top holdings to estimate overlap, so whether holding both duplicates your exposure depends on their full constituent lists. General information only, not financial advice.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. A200 charges 0.04% and RMBS charges 0.29%, so A200 has the lower management fee. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors above and consider each fund's Product Disclosure Statement and Target Market Determination. General information only, not financial advice.
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 →View full ETF profiles
Holdings, fees, sectors and distributions for each fund.
A200 full profile →RMBS full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →