iShares Core Cash ETF vs VanEck Australian Subordinated Debt ETF
These ETFs invest in different asset classes (shares vs bonds). They are unlikely to share holdings.
Scored across Cost (35%), Fund size (20%), Holdings breadth (25%), Income (20%). 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 SUBD are both Bonds ETFs. BILL tracks the Bloomberg AusBond Bank Bill Index and SUBD tracks the Solactive Australian Investment Grade Corporate Bond Select TR Index. BILL has the lower management fee (0.18% vs 0.29% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
iShares Core Cash ETF
BlackRock (iShares)
VanEck Australian Subordinated Debt 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
Neither BILL nor SUBD is the "right" pick for everyone; it comes down to what you want from the holding. Where they differ most:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
BILL has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
SUBD is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
BILL spreads exposure across more holdings (BILL 78, SUBD 36); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
BILL distributes approximately 3.8% and SUBD approximately 4.5%; SUBD 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.
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).
BILL top holdings
This issuer does not publish full holdings for this fund, so they are not shown here.
SUBD top holdings
Based on each fund's most recently published sector and geographic weightings; figures are approximate. Full breakdowns are shown below.
BILL sectors
SUBD sectors
BILL geography
SUBD geography
Whether BILL or SUBD fits comes down to your goals, time horizon and what you already hold. The clearest differences are summarised near the top of this page, with the full data below.
BILL and SUBD 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 0.18% per year ($18 per year on a $10,000 investment) and SUBD charges 0.29% per year ($29 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $11 per year per $10,000 invested.
BILL (iShares Core Cash ETF) manages approximately $1.2B and SUBD (VanEck Australian Subordinated Debt ETF) manages approximately $3.7B. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
BILL and SUBD 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 0.18% and SUBD charges 0.29%, 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.
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.
BILL full profile →SUBD full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →