Betashares Australian Quality ETF vs ETFS US Technology Currency Hedged ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap.
Scored across Cost (63.6%), Fund size (36.4%). 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.
AQLT and HTTP are both Thematic ETFs. HTTP has the lower management fee (0.17% vs 0.35% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
Betashares Australian Quality ETF
BetaShares
ETFS US Technology Currency Hedged ETF
Other
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 AQLT and HTTP:
Green highlights the leading comparison score, the factually lower fee, or the higher scale or income figure. Performance is never highlighted. Data from issuer disclosures and the ASX Investment Products report. Fund size, yield, return and holdings figures each state the date they are as at; sector and geography figures for some funds are category-inferred estimates, clearly labelled on each fund's page.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
Cost (management fee): HTTP has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
Fund size (assets): AQLT is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
General information only, not financial advice. ETFLens does not hold an AFSL. Always read the relevant PDS and consider seeking advice from a licensed financial adviser.
Fund sizes as at 30 Sep 2026 for both funds.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. AQLT yield as at 31 Jul 2026. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns or distributions.
AQLT returns as at 30 Sep 2026.
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). AQLT listed top holdings as at 29 Oct 2026.
AQLT top holdings
HTTP top holdings
This issuer does not publish full holdings for this fund, so they are not shown here.
There is no single right choice between AQLT and HTTP - 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.
AQLT and HTTP do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
HTTP has the lower management fee. AQLT charges 0.35% per year ($35 per year on a $10,000 investment) and HTTP charges 0.17% per year ($17 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $18 per year per $10,000 invested.
AQLT (Betashares Australian Quality ETF) manages approximately $1.5B and HTTP (ETFS US Technology Currency Hedged ETF) manages approximately $0.9M. Fund sizes as at 30 Sep 2026 for both funds. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
AQLT and HTTP 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. AQLT charges 0.35% and HTTP charges 0.17%, so HTTP 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. 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.
AQLT full profile →HTTP full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →