Betashares Australian Quality ETF vs VanEck Australian Resources ETF
Overlap is calculated from each fund's full published holdings list. Where there are no shared listed holdings it is shown as not reliably estimable.
AQLT and MVR are both Thematic ETFs. Both charge 0.35% p.a. Holdings overlap is approximately 11% (full holdings data).
Betashares Australian Quality ETF
BetaShares
VanEck Australian Resources ETF
VanEck
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
Which of AQLT and MVR fits depends on your objectives, not on one being superior. Where the two funds differ most:
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, reviewed quarterly; 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): Both charge about 0.35% p.a.
Fund size (assets): AQLT is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
Holdings breadth: AQLT spreads exposure across more holdings (AQLT 40, MVR 34); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
Income (distribution yield): AQLT distributes approximately 4.2% and MVR approximately 2.37%; AQLT 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.
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.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns or 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: full holdings data.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures.
AQLT top holdings
MVR top holdings
Sector weights for MVR are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
AQLT sectors
MVR sectors
Geographic weights for AQLT and MVR are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
AQLT geography
MVR geography
Choosing between AQLT and MVR depends on your goals, time horizon and current holdings, not on one being the right answer for everyone. The main differences are summarised above, with the complete data below.
AQLT and MVR have approximately 11% holdings overlap, based on each fund's full published holdings list. This is considered low overlap.
AQLT and MVR charge the same management fee of 0.35% per year.
AQLT (Betashares Australian Quality ETF) manages approximately $1.5B and MVR (VanEck Australian Resources ETF) manages approximately $835.88M. 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 11% 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. AQLT charges 0.35% and MVR charges 0.35%, the same management fee, and they have approximately 11% 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.
AQLT full profile →MVR full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →