Betashares Managed Risk Australian Shares Complex ETF vs Dimensional Australian Core Equity Trust - Active ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap.
Scored across Cost (46.7%), Fund size (26.7%), Income (26.7%). 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.
AUST and DACE are both Australian Broad Market ETFs. DACE has the lower management fee (0.28% vs 0.35% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
Betashares Managed Risk Australian Shares Complex ETF
BetaShares
Dimensional Australian Core Equity Trust - Active ETF
Dimensional
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
AUST and DACE suit different goals rather than one being "better" than the other. The clearest differences:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
DACE has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
DACE is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
AUST distributes approximately 2.9% and DACE approximately 3.26%; DACE 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; sector and geography figures for some funds are category-inferred estimates, clearly labelled on each fund's page.
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 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).
AUST top holdings
DACE top holdings
This issuer does not publish full holdings for this fund, so they are not shown here.
Sector weights for DACE are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
AUST sectors
DACE sectors
Geographic weights for DACE are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
AUST geography
DACE geography
AUST and DACE can each make sense depending on your objectives, horizon and existing portfolio. The key differences are near the top of this page, and the full side-by-side data is below.
AUST and DACE do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
DACE has the lower management fee. AUST charges 0.35% per year ($35 per year on a $10,000 investment) and DACE charges 0.28% per year ($28 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $7 per year per $10,000 invested.
AUST (Betashares Managed Risk Australian Shares Complex ETF) manages approximately $26.8M and DACE (Dimensional Australian Core Equity Trust - Active ETF) manages approximately $6.4B. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
AUST and DACE 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. AUST charges 0.35% and DACE charges 0.28%, so DACE 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 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.
AUST full profile →DACE full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →