VanEck Global Clean Energy ETF vs Betashares Climate Change Innovation ETF
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.
Betashares Climate Change Innovation ETF
BetaShares
Comparison Scorei
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.
CLNE scores 2.5/10 and ERTH scores 3.3/10 on this comparison, with ERTH leading on Performance. CLNE may suit investors who prefer larger, more established funds; ERTH may suit growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns). General information only, not financial advice.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
Both charge about 0.65% p.a. in management fees.
CLNE manages $97.6M and ERTH manages $90.2M; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
CLNE holds 31 positions and ERTH holds 100; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
CLNE distributes approximately 0.8% (Semi-annually) and ERTH approximately 0.4% (Semi-annually); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Historical return data is not available for both funds, so this dimension is shown as neutral. 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.
| Field | CLNE | ERTH |
|---|---|---|
| Full name | VanEck Global Clean Energy ETF | Betashares Climate Change Innovation ETF |
| Provider | VanEck | BetaShares |
| Asset class | Thematic | Thematic |
| Index tracked | S&P Global Clean Energy Select Index | Solactive Climate Change and Environmental Opportunities Index |
| Inception | 2021 | 2021 |
| Domicile | Australia | Australia |
| Exchange | ASX | ASX |
| Field | CLNE | ERTH |
|---|---|---|
| Management fee (MER) | 0.65% p.a. | 0.65% p.a. |
| Est. annual cost on $10,000 | $65 | $65 |
| Est. annual cost on $50,000 | $325 | $325 |
| Est. annual cost on $100,000 | $650 | $650 |
| Field | CLNE | ERTH |
|---|---|---|
| Fund size (AUM) | $97.6M | $90.2M |
| Number of holdings | 31 | 100 |
| Field | CLNE | ERTH |
|---|---|---|
| Distribution yield | approximately 0.8% | approximately 0.4% |
| Franking | Not available | Not available |
| Payment frequency | Semi-annually | Semi-annually |
| Est. annual income on $50,000 | approximately $400 | approximately $200 |
| Field | CLNE | ERTH |
|---|---|---|
| 1-year return | -14.8% | Not available |
| 3-year p.a. | -22.4% | Not available |
| 5-year p.a. | Not available | Not available |
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
| Field | CLNE | ERTH |
|---|---|---|
| Holdings overlap | approximately 12% | approximately 12% |
| Currency hedged | No | No |
| Geographic focus | United States | United States |
| Top 3 sectors | Utilities, Industrials, Information Technology | Enabling Solutions, Green Transportation, Green Energy |
CLNE top holdings
ERTH top holdings
CLNE scores 2.5/10 and ERTH scores 3.3/10 on this comparison. ERTH has the higher overall comparison score.
CLNE may suit investors who: investors who prefer larger, more established funds.
ERTH may suit investors who: growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns).
This comparison is general information only and not personal financial advice. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. ETFLens does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). Consider your own objectives, financial situation and needs, or speak with a licensed financial adviser before making investment decisions.
CLNE and ERTH have approximately 12% estimated holdings overlap, based on the top 10 listed holdings of each fund. This is considered low overlap, estimated from listed top holdings rather than the full constituent lists. General information only, not financial advice.
CLNE and ERTH charge the same management fee of 0.65% per year. General information only, not financial advice.
CLNE (VanEck Global Clean Energy ETF) manages approximately $97.6M and ERTH (Betashares Climate Change Innovation ETF) manages approximately $90.2M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
You can hold both, but with approximately 12% 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. General information only, not financial advice.
There is no universally right choice — it depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. CLNE charges 0.65% and ERTH charges 0.65%, the same management fee, and they have approximately 12% 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, 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 estimated from listed top holdings, not full constituent lists, 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.
Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison. General information only.
Compare other ETFs →