Betashares Australian Government Bond ETF vs iShares Credit Income Active ETF
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.
Betashares Australian Government Bond ETF
BetaShares
iShares Credit Income Active ETF
BlackRock (iShares)
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.
AGVT and ICME are both Bonds ETFs: AGVT tracks the Bloomberg AusBond Government 0+ Yr Index and ICME tracks the . AGVT has the lower management fee (0.1% vs 0.29% p.a.). Holdings overlap is approximately 0% estimated (top 45 holdings). General information only, not financial advice.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
AGVT charges 0.1% p.a. and ICME charges 0.29% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
AGVT manages $1.1B and ICME manages $95.63M; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
AGVT holds 79 positions and ICME holds 45; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
AGVT distributes approximately 3.9% (Monthly) and ICME approximately 2.48% (Monthly); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Historical return data is not available for both funds, so this dimension is shown as neutral. 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 shared holdings ranked by overlap contribution, the smaller of each company's weight in the two funds. Basis: top 45 holdings. General information only.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures. General information only.
AGVT top holdings
ICME top holdings
AGVT sectors
ICME sectors
AGVT geography
ICME geography
AGVT scores 6.1/10 and ICME scores 5.1/10 on this comparison. AGVT has the higher overall comparison score.
AGVT may suit investors who: cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees.
ICME may suit investors who: cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees.
AGVT and ICME have approximately 0% estimated holdings overlap (top 45 holdings). This is considered low overlap, estimated from listed top holdings rather than the full constituent lists. General information only, not financial advice.
AGVT has the lower management fee. AGVT charges 0.1% per year ($10 per year on a $10,000 investment) and ICME charges 0.29% per year ($29 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $19 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
AGVT (Betashares Australian Government Bond ETF) manages approximately $1.1B and ICME (iShares Credit Income Active ETF) manages approximately $95.63M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
You can hold both, but with approximately 0% 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. General information only, not financial advice.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. AGVT charges 0.1% and ICME charges 0.29%, so AGVT has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 0% 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, 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.
AGVT full profile →ICME full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →