Betashares Global Shares ETF vs VanEck FTSE China A50 ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap. General information only.
BGBL may suit investors seeking broad market exposure. CETF may suit investors seeking income and dividend distributions.
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 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.
Betashares Global Shares ETF
BetaShares
VanEck FTSE China A50 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.
BGBL and CETF are both Global Broad Market ETFs: BGBL tracks the Solactive GBS Developed Markets ex Australia Large & Mid Cap Index and CETF tracks the . BGBL has the lower management fee (0.08% vs 0.6% 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.
BGBL charges 0.08% p.a. and CETF charges 0.6% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
BGBL manages $4.2B and CETF manages $37.3M; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
BGBL holds 1,194 positions and CETF holds 50; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
BGBL distributes approximately 1.6% (Annually) and CETF approximately 1.98% (Quarterly); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Over the compared period BGBL returned 15.4% and CETF returned 6.6%. 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.
BGBL top holdings
CETF top holdings
Sector weights for CETFare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
BGBL sectors
CETF sectors
Geographic weights for CETFare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
BGBL geography
CETF geography
BGBL scores 8.4/10 and CETF scores 3.7/10 on this comparison. BGBL has the higher overall comparison score.
BGBL may suit investors who: investors seeking broad market exposure.
CETF may suit investors who: investors seeking income and dividend distributions.
BGBL and CETF 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.
BGBL has the lower management fee. BGBL charges 0.08% per year ($8 per year on a $10,000 investment) and CETF charges 0.6% per year ($60 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $52 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
BGBL (Betashares Global Shares ETF) manages approximately $4.2B and CETF (VanEck FTSE China A50 ETF) manages approximately $37.3M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
BGBL and CETF 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. BGBL charges 0.08% and CETF charges 0.6%, so BGBL 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.
BGBL full profile →CETF full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →