Betashares Australian Government Bond ETF vs VanEck Global Listed Private Credit (AUD Hedged) ETF
These ETFs invest in different asset classes (shares vs bonds). They are unlikely to share holdings. General information only.
AGVT may suit cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees. LEND 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. These funds invest in different markets, so the expected overlap is approximately 0%.
Betashares Australian Government Bond ETF
BetaShares
VanEck Global Listed Private Credit (AUD Hedged) 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.
AGVT and LEND are both Bonds ETFs: AGVT tracks the Bloomberg AusBond Government 0+ Yr Index and LEND tracks the . AGVT has the lower management fee (0.1% vs 0.65% 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.
AGVT charges 0.1% p.a. and LEND charges 0.65% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
AGVT manages $1.1B and LEND manages $224.01M; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
AGVT holds 79 positions and LEND holds 0; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
AGVT distributes approximately 3.9% (Monthly) and LEND approximately 11.89% (Monthly); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Over the compared period AGVT returned -1.3% and LEND returned -6.7%. 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.
AGVT top holdings
LEND top holdings
Sector weights for LENDare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
AGVT sectors
LEND sectors
Geographic weights for LENDare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
AGVT geography
LEND geography
AGVT scores 6.1/10 and LEND scores 4.1/10 on this comparison. AGVT has the higher overall comparison score.
AGVT may suit investors who: cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees.
LEND may suit investors who: investors seeking income and dividend distributions.
AGVT and LEND 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.
AGVT has the lower management fee. AGVT charges 0.1% per year ($10 per year on a $10,000 investment) and LEND charges 0.65% per year ($65 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $55 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
AGVT (Betashares Australian Government Bond ETF) manages approximately $1.1B and LEND (VanEck Global Listed Private Credit (AUD Hedged) ETF) manages approximately $224.01M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
AGVT and LEND 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. AGVT charges 0.1% and LEND charges 0.65%, so AGVT 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.
AGVT full profile →LEND full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →