Betashares Global Cash Flow Kings ETF vs VanEck MSCI International Quality 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.
CFLO (Thematic) and QUAL (Global Broad Market) provide different exposures. CFLO tracks the Solactive Global ex-Australia Cash Flow Kings Index and QUAL tracks the MSCI World ex Australia Quality Index. Both charge 0.4% p.a. Holdings overlap is approximately 29% (full holdings data).
Betashares Global Cash Flow Kings ETF
BetaShares
VanEck MSCI International Quality 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 CFLO nor QUAL 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.
Both charge about 0.4% p.a.
QUAL is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
QUAL spreads exposure across more holdings (CFLO 199, QUAL 295); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
CFLO distributes approximately 3.2% and QUAL approximately 1.4%; CFLO 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 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.
CFLO top holdings
QUAL top holdings
Based on each fund's most recently published sector and geographic weightings; figures are approximate. Full breakdowns are shown below.
CFLO sectors
QUAL sectors
CFLO geography
QUAL geography
Whether CFLO or QUAL 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.
CFLO and QUAL have approximately 29% holdings overlap, based on each fund's full published holdings list. This is considered low overlap.
CFLO and QUAL charge the same management fee of 0.4% per year.
CFLO (Betashares Global Cash Flow Kings ETF) manages approximately $28.2M and QUAL (VanEck MSCI International Quality ETF) manages approximately $8.4B. 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 29% estimated holdings overlap the two funds hold mostly different companies, so they can be more complementary. 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. CFLO charges 0.4% and QUAL charges 0.4%, the same management fee, and they have approximately 29% 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.
CFLO full profile →QUAL full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →