Betashares Global Defence ETF vs Betashares Asia Technology Tigers 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.
ARMR and ASIA are both Thematic ETFs. ARMR tracks the VettaFi Global Defence Leaders Index and ASIA tracks the Solactive Asia ex-Japan Technology and Internet Tigers Index. ARMR has the lower management fee (0.55% vs 0.67% p.a.). Holdings overlap is approximately 0% (full holdings data).
Betashares Global Defence ETF
BetaShares
Betashares Asia Technology Tigers ETF
BetaShares
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 ARMR and ASIA:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
ARMR has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
ASIA is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
ARMR spreads exposure across more holdings (ARMR 60, ASIA 50); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
ARMR distributes approximately 2.2% and ASIA approximately 1.9%; ARMR 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.
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.
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.
ARMR top holdings
ASIA top holdings
Based on each fund's most recently published sector and geographic weightings; figures are approximate. Full breakdowns are shown below.
ARMR sectors
ASIA sectors
ARMR geography
ASIA geography
There is no single right choice between ARMR and ASIA - 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.
ARMR and ASIA have approximately 0% holdings overlap, based on each fund's full published holdings list. This is considered low overlap.
ARMR has the lower management fee. ARMR charges 0.55% per year ($55 per year on a $10,000 investment) and ASIA charges 0.67% per year ($67 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $12 per year per $10,000 invested.
ARMR (Betashares Global Defence ETF) manages approximately $233.4M and ASIA (Betashares Asia Technology Tigers ETF) manages approximately $1.3B. 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 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.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. ARMR charges 0.55% and ASIA charges 0.67%, so ARMR 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. 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.
ARMR full profile →ASIA full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →