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. General information only.
CIVH may suit investors seeking income and dividend distributions. QAU may suit growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns).
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.
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. General information only, not financial advice.
CIVH and QAU are both Thematic ETFs: CIVH tracks the and QAU tracks the Gold spot price (AUD hedged). QAU has the lower management fee (0.59% vs 1.03% 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.
CIVH charges 1.03% p.a. and QAU charges 0.59% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
CIVH manages $1.1B and QAU manages $1.4B; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
CIVH holds 0 positions and QAU holds 1; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
CIVH distributes approximately 7.4% (Quarterly) and QAU approximately 1.2% (N/A); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Over the compared period CIVH returned 18.8% and QAU returned 19.6%. 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.
CIVH top holdings
QAU top holdings
Sector weights for CIVHare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
CIVH sectors
QAU sectors
Geographic weights for CIVHare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
CIVH geography
QAU geography
CIVH scores 5.0/10 and QAU scores 4.6/10 on this comparison. CIVH has the higher overall comparison score.
CIVH may suit investors who: investors seeking income and dividend distributions.
QAU may suit investors who: growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns).
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. General information only, not financial advice.
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. General information only, not financial advice.
CIVH (CB GLBL Infrastructure Value (Hedged) Active ETF) manages approximately $1.1B 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. General information only, not financial advice.
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. General information only, not financial advice.
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, 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.
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 →