CB GLBL Infrastructure Value (Hedged) Active ETF vs Betashares Gold Bullion Currency Hedged 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.
CIVH and QAU are both Thematic ETFs. QAU has the lower management fee (0.59% vs 1.03% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
CB GLBL Infrastructure Value (Hedged) Active ETF
Other
Betashares Gold Bullion Currency Hedged ETF
BetaShares
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
Which of CIVH and QAU fits depends on your objectives, not on one being superior. Where the two funds differ most:
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, reviewed quarterly; sector and geography figures for some funds are category-inferred estimates, clearly labelled on each fund's page.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
Cost (management fee): QAU has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
Fund size (assets): QAU is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
Income (distribution yield): CIVH distributes approximately 0% and QAU approximately 5.5%; QAU 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.
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.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns or 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).
CIVH top holdings
This issuer does not publish full holdings for this fund, so they are not shown here.
QAU top holdings
Sector weights for CIVH are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
CIVH sectors
QAU sectors
Geographic weights for CIVH are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
CIVH geography
QAU geography
Choosing between CIVH and QAU depends on your goals, time horizon and current holdings, not on one being the right answer for everyone. The main differences are summarised above, with the complete data below.
CIVH and QAU do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
QAU has the lower management fee. CIVH charges 1.03% per year ($103 per year on a $10,000 investment) and QAU charges 0.59% per year ($59 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $44 per year per $10,000 invested.
CIVH (CB GLBL Infrastructure Value (Hedged) Active ETF) manages approximately $1.0B and QAU (Betashares Gold Bullion Currency Hedged ETF) manages approximately $1.4B. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
CIVH and QAU 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. CIVH charges 1.03% and QAU charges 0.59%, so QAU 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.
CIVH full profile →QAU full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →