Betashares Australian Sustainability Leaders ETF vs Betashares Global Shares Catholic Values ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap.
Scored across Cost (63.6%), Fund size (36.4%). 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.
FAIR and GECV are both ESG / Ethical ETFs. FAIR tracks the Nasdaq Future Australian Sustainability Leaders Index and GECV tracks the Solactive Global Equities ex-Australia Catholic Values Index. GECV has the lower management fee (0.35% vs 0.49% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
Betashares Australian Sustainability Leaders ETF
BetaShares
Betashares Global Shares Catholic Values 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 FAIR and GECV 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 and the ASX Investment Products report. Fund size, yield, return and holdings figures each state the date they are as at.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
Cost (management fee): GECV has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
Fund size (assets): FAIR is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
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.
Fund sizes are as at different dates (FAIR 30 Sep 2026, GECV date not recorded), so the two funds' figures are not directly comparable.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. FAIR yield as at 31 Jul 2026. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns or distributions.
FAIR returns as at 30 Sep 2026.
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). FAIR listed top holdings as at 29 Oct 2026.
FAIR top holdings
GECV top holdings
This issuer does not publish full holdings for this fund, so they are not shown here.
Choosing between FAIR and GECV 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.
FAIR and GECV do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
GECV has the lower management fee. FAIR charges 0.49% per year ($49 per year on a $10,000 investment) and GECV charges 0.35% per year ($35 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $14 per year per $10,000 invested.
FAIR (Betashares Australian Sustainability Leaders ETF) manages approximately $1.0B and GECV (Betashares Global Shares Catholic Values ETF) manages approximately $47.29M. Fund sizes are as at different dates (FAIR 30 Sep 2026, GECV date not recorded), so the two funds' figures are not directly comparable. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
FAIR and GECV 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. FAIR charges 0.49% and GECV charges 0.35%, so GECV 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. 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.
FAIR full profile →GECV full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →