Global X Battery Tech & Lithium ETF vs Betashares Climate Change Innovation 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.
ACDC and ERTH are both Thematic ETFs. ACDC tracks the Solactive Battery Value-Chain Index and ERTH tracks the Solactive Climate Change and Environmental Opportunities Index. ERTH has the lower management fee (0.65% vs 0.69% p.a.). Holdings overlap is approximately 12% estimated (top 46 holdings).
Global X Battery Tech & Lithium ETF
Global X
Betashares Climate Change Innovation ETF
BetaShares
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
There is no single "better" fund here - which suits you depends on your goals. The clearest differences between ACDC and ERTH:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
ERTH has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
ACDC is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
ERTH spreads exposure across more holdings (ACDC 46, ERTH 110); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
ACDC distributes approximately 0.6% and ERTH approximately 0.4%; ACDC 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.
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 shared holdings ranked by overlap contribution, the smaller of each company's weight in the two funds. Basis: top 46 holdings.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures.
ACDC top holdings
ERTH top holdings
Based on each fund's most recently published sector and geographic weightings; figures are approximate. Full breakdowns are shown below.
ACDC sectors
ERTH sectors
ACDC geography
ERTH geography
There is no single right choice between ACDC and ERTH - it depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. The key differences between the two funds are summarised near the top of this page, with the full side-by-side data below.
ACDC and ERTH have approximately 12% estimated holdings overlap (top 46 holdings). This is considered low overlap, estimated from listed top holdings rather than the full constituent lists.
ERTH has the lower management fee. ACDC charges 0.69% per year ($69 per year on a $10,000 investment) and ERTH charges 0.65% per year ($65 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $4 per year per $10,000 invested.
ACDC (Global X Battery Tech & Lithium ETF) manages approximately $796.3M and ERTH (Betashares Climate Change Innovation ETF) manages approximately $90.2M. 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 12% estimated holdings overlap the two funds hold mostly different companies, so they can be more complementary. 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. ACDC charges 0.69% and ERTH charges 0.65%, so ERTH has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 12% 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 →View full ETF profiles
Holdings, fees, sectors and distributions for each fund.
ACDC full profile →ERTH full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →