Global X FANG+ ETF vs Global X Russell 2000 ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap.
Scored across Cost (35%), Fund size (20%), Holdings breadth (25%), Income (20%). 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.
FANG and RSSL are both US Shares ETFs. FANG tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index and RSSL tracks the Russell 2000 Index. RSSL has the lower management fee (0.18% vs 0.35% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
Global X FANG+ ETF
Global X
Global X Russell 2000 ETF
Global X
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
FANG and RSSL suit different goals rather than one being "better" than the other. The clearest differences:
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): RSSL has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
Fund size (assets): FANG is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
Holdings breadth: RSSL spreads exposure across more holdings (FANG 10, RSSL 1,647); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
Income (distribution yield): FANG distributes approximately 0.3% and RSSL approximately 0.55%; RSSL 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.
FANG top holdings
RSSL top holdings
Sector weights for RSSL are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
FANG sectors
RSSL sectors
Geographic weights for RSSL are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
FANG geography
RSSL geography
FANG and RSSL can each make sense depending on your objectives, horizon and existing portfolio. The key differences are near the top of this page, and the full side-by-side data is below.
FANG and RSSL do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
RSSL has the lower management fee. FANG charges 0.35% per year ($35 per year on a $10,000 investment) and RSSL charges 0.18% per year ($18 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $17 per year per $10,000 invested.
FANG (Global X FANG+ ETF) manages approximately $1.6B and RSSL (Global X Russell 2000 ETF) manages approximately $25.23M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
FANG and RSSL 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. FANG charges 0.35% and RSSL charges 0.18%, so RSSL 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.
FANG full profile →RSSL full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →