iShares Core Cash ETF vs Macquarie Core Australian Bond Active ETF
These ETFs invest in different asset classes (shares vs bonds). They are unlikely to share holdings.
Scored across Cost (63.6%), Fund size (36.4%). Past performance is excluded.
See full breakdown ↓Overlap is estimated from the funds' listed top holdings, not their full constituent lists. These funds invest in different markets, so the expected overlap is approximately 0%.
BILL and MQFI are both Bonds ETFs. BILL has the lower management fee (0.07% vs 0.09% p.a.). Note: MQFI also charges a performance fee (20% of returns above its benchmark). Figures show the base management fee only, so total cost can be higher. A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
iShares Core Cash ETF
BlackRock (iShares)
Macquarie Core Australian Bond Active ETF
Other
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 BILL and MQFI:
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 and the ASX Investment Products report. Fund size, yield, return and holdings figures each state the date they are as at.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
Cost (management fee): BILL has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis. Note: MQFI also charges a performance fee (20% of returns above its benchmark). Figures show the base management fee only, so total cost can be higher.
Fund size (assets): BILL is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
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.
Fund sizes as at 30 Sep 2026 for both funds.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. BILL yield as at 31 Mar 2026. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns or distributions. These figures may be out of date. Check the fund manager's website for current performance.
BILL returns as at 30 Sep 2026.
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).
BILL top holdings
This issuer does not publish full holdings for this fund, so they are not shown here.
MQFI top holdings
This issuer does not publish full holdings for this fund, so they are not shown here.
There is no single right choice between BILL and MQFI - 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.
BILL and MQFI do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
BILL has the lower management fee. BILL charges 0.07% per year ($7 per year on a $10,000 investment) and MQFI charges 0.09% per year ($9 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $2 per year per $10,000 invested. Note: MQFI also charges a performance fee (20% of returns above its benchmark). Figures show the base management fee only, so total cost can be higher.
BILL (iShares Core Cash ETF) manages approximately $1.3B and MQFI (Macquarie Core Australian Bond Active ETF) manages approximately $1.5M. Fund sizes as at 30 Sep 2026 for both funds. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
BILL and MQFI 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. BILL charges 0.07% and MQFI charges 0.09%, so BILL has the lower management fee. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors above and consider each fund's Product Disclosure Statement and Target Market Determination. Note: MQFI also charges a performance fee (20% of returns above its benchmark). Figures show the base management fee only, so total cost can be higher.
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. 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.
BILL full profile →MQFI full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →