iShares Edge MSCI Australia Multifactor ETF vs VanEck Australian Equal Weight 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.
AUMF and MVW are both Australian Broad Market ETFs. AUMF has the lower management fee (0.3% vs 0.35% p.a.). Holdings overlap is approximately 41% (full holdings data).
iShares Edge MSCI Australia Multifactor ETF
BlackRock (iShares)
VanEck Australian Equal Weight 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 AUMF and MVW 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.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
Cost (management fee): AUMF has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
Fund size (assets): MVW is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
Holdings breadth: AUMF spreads exposure across more holdings (AUMF 129, MVW 75); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
Income (distribution yield): AUMF distributes approximately 2.92% and MVW approximately 3.2%; MVW 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.
AUMF top holdings
MVW top holdings
Based on each fund's most recently published sector and geographic weightings; figures are approximate. Full breakdowns are shown below.
AUMF sectors
MVW sectors
AUMF geography
MVW geography
Choosing between AUMF and MVW 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.
AUMF and MVW have approximately 41% holdings overlap, based on each fund's full published holdings list. This is considered moderate overlap.
AUMF has the lower management fee. AUMF charges 0.3% per year ($30 per year on a $10,000 investment) and MVW charges 0.35% per year ($35 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $5 per year per $10,000 invested.
AUMF (iShares Edge MSCI Australia Multifactor ETF) manages approximately $145.57M and MVW (VanEck Australian Equal Weight ETF) manages approximately $3.3B. 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 41% estimated holdings overlap the two funds share a moderate proportion of holdings, so there is some duplicated exposure. 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. AUMF charges 0.3% and MVW charges 0.35%, so AUMF has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 41% 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.
AUMF full profile →MVW full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →