iShares Global Aggregate Bond ESG (AUD Hedged) ETF vs Betashares Australian Sustainability Leaders ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap. General information only.
AESG may suit cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees. FAIR 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 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.
iShares Global Aggregate Bond ESG (AUD Hedged) ETF
BlackRock (iShares)
Betashares Australian Sustainability Leaders ETF
BetaShares
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.
AESG and FAIR are both ESG / Ethical ETFs: AESG tracks the and FAIR tracks the Nasdaq Future Australian Sustainability Leaders Index. AESG has the lower management fee (0.19% vs 0.49% 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.
AESG charges 0.19% p.a. and FAIR charges 0.49% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
AESG manages $344.03M and FAIR manages $1.1B; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
AESG holds 0 positions and FAIR holds 78; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
AESG distributes approximately 3.27% (Monthly) and FAIR approximately 4.2% (Semi-annually); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Over the compared period AESG returned 2.8% and FAIR returned 2.9%. 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.
AESG top holdings
Holdings not published for this fund type.
FAIR top holdings
Sector weights for AESGare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
AESG sectors
FAIR sectors
Geographic weights for AESGare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
AESG geography
FAIR geography
AESG scores 5.2/10 and FAIR scores 5.2/10 on this comparison. The two are effectively level overall.
AESG may suit investors who: cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees.
FAIR may suit investors who: investors seeking income and dividend distributions.
AESG and FAIR 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.
AESG has the lower management fee. AESG charges 0.19% per year ($19 per year on a $10,000 investment) and FAIR charges 0.49% per year ($49 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $30 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
AESG (iShares Global Aggregate Bond ESG (AUD Hedged) ETF) manages approximately $344.03M and FAIR (Betashares Australian Sustainability Leaders ETF) manages approximately $1.1B. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
AESG and FAIR 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. AESG charges 0.19% and FAIR charges 0.49%, so AESG 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.
AESG full profile →FAIR full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →