Betashares Asia Technology Tigers ETF vs VanEck MSCI International Small Companies Quality ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap. General information only.
ASIA may suit investors who prefer larger, more established funds. QSML may suit growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns).
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 calculated from each fund's full published holdings list. Where there are no shared listed holdings it is shown as not reliably estimable.
Betashares Asia Technology Tigers ETF
BetaShares
VanEck MSCI International Small Companies Quality 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.
ASIA and QSML are both Thematic ETFs: ASIA tracks the Solactive Asia ex-Japan Technology and Internet Tigers Index and QSML tracks the . QSML has the lower management fee (0.59% vs 0.67% 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.
ASIA charges 0.67% p.a. and QSML charges 0.59% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
ASIA manages $1.3B and QSML manages $1.5B; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
ASIA holds 55 positions and QSML holds 150; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
ASIA distributes approximately 0.7% (Semi-annually) and QSML approximately 0.29% (Quarterly); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Over the compared period ASIA returned 9.8% and QSML returned 12.9%. 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.
ASIA top holdings
QSML top holdings
ASIA sectors
QSML sectors
Geographic weights for QSMLare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
ASIA geography
QSML geography
ASIA scores 4.0/10 and QSML scores 4.9/10 on this comparison. QSML has the higher overall comparison score.
ASIA may suit investors who: investors who prefer larger, more established funds.
QSML may suit investors who: growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns).
ASIA and QSML 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.
QSML has the lower management fee. ASIA charges 0.67% per year ($67 per year on a $10,000 investment) and QSML charges 0.59% per year ($59 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $8 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
ASIA (Betashares Asia Technology Tigers ETF) manages approximately $1.3B and QSML (VanEck MSCI International Small Companies Quality ETF) manages approximately $1.5B. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
ASIA and QSML 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. ASIA charges 0.67% and QSML charges 0.59%, so QSML 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.
ASIA full profile →QSML full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →