Global X Australia 300 ETF vs Dimensional Australian Core Equity Trust - Active ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap.
Scored across Cost (46.7%), Fund size (26.7%), Income (26.7%). Past performance is excluded.
See full breakdown ↓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.
A300 and DACE are both Australian Broad Market ETFs. A300 has the lower management fee (0.04% vs 0.28% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
Global X Australia 300 ETF
Global X
Dimensional Australian Core Equity Trust - Active ETF
Dimensional
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
Which of A300 and DACE fits depends on your objectives, not on one being superior. Where the two funds differ most:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
A300 has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
DACE is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
A300 distributes approximately 1.95% and DACE approximately 3.26%; DACE 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.
Green highlights the factually lower fee or higher scale/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.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. Past distributions are not a reliable indicator of future distributions.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
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).
A300 top holdings
DACE top holdings
This issuer does not publish full holdings for this fund, so they are not shown here.
Sector weights for A300 and DACE are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
A300 sectors
DACE sectors
Geographic weights for A300 and DACE are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
A300 geography
DACE geography
Choosing between A300 and DACE depends on your goals, time horizon and current holdings, not on one being the right answer for everyone. The main differences are summarised above, with the complete data below.
A300 and DACE do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
A300 has the lower management fee. A300 charges 0.04% per year ($4 per year on a $10,000 investment) and DACE charges 0.28% per year ($28 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $24 per year per $10,000 invested.
A300 (Global X Australia 300 ETF) manages approximately $10.66M and DACE (Dimensional Australian Core Equity Trust - Active ETF) manages approximately $6.4B. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
A300 and DACE do not share enough listed top holdings to estimate overlap, so whether holding both duplicates your exposure depends on their full constituent lists.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. A300 charges 0.04% and DACE charges 0.28%, so A300 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. 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.
A300 full profile →DACE full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →