Betashares Ethical Diversified Balanced ETF vs SPDR S&P/ASX 200 ESG ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap.
Scored across Cost, Fund size, Holdings breadth and Income. 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.
Betashares Ethical Diversified Balanced ETF
BetaShares
SPDR S&P/ASX 200 ESG ETF
State Street (SPDR)
Comparison scores reflect how each ETF compares to the other on these specific dimensions only. They are not absolute ratings or recommendations.
DBBF and E200 are both ESG / Ethical ETFs: DBBF tracks the and E200 tracks the S&P/ASX 200 Index. E200 has the lower management fee (0.05% vs 0.39% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
Key differences at a glance
Which of DBBF and E200 fits depends on your objectives, not on one being superior. Where the two funds differ most:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
E200 has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
E200 is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
E200 spreads exposure across more holdings (DBBF 5, E200 103); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
DBBF distributes approximately 2.78% and E200 approximately 5.75%; E200 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.
DBBF top holdings
E200 top holdings
Based on each fund's most recently published sector and geographic weightings; figures are approximate. Full breakdowns are shown below.
Sector weights for DBBFare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
DBBF sectors
E200 sectors
DBBF geography
E200 geography
Choosing between DBBF and E200 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.
DBBF and E200 do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
E200 has the lower management fee. DBBF charges 0.39% per year ($39 per year on a $10,000 investment) and E200 charges 0.05% per year ($5 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $34 per year per $10,000 invested.
DBBF (Betashares Ethical Diversified Balanced ETF) manages approximately $36.16M and E200 (SPDR S&P/ASX 200 ESG ETF) manages approximately $391.6M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
DBBF and E200 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. DBBF charges 0.39% and E200 charges 0.05%, so E200 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.
DBBF full profile →E200 full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →