Global X FANG+ ETF vs Global X Ultra Short Nasdaq 100 Complex ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap. General information only.
FANG may suit growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns). SNAS 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.
Global X FANG+ ETF
Global X
Global X Ultra Short Nasdaq 100 Complex 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. General information only, not financial advice.
FANG and SNAS are both US Shares ETFs: FANG tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index and SNAS tracks the . FANG has the lower management fee (0.35% vs 1% 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.
FANG charges 0.35% p.a. and SNAS charges 1% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
FANG manages $1.7B and SNAS manages $61.73M; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
FANG holds 10 positions and SNAS holds 0; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
FANG distributes approximately 0.3% (Quarterly) and SNAS approximately 0% (N/A); 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.
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.
FANG top holdings
SNAS top holdings
Sector weights for SNASare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
FANG sectors
SNAS sectors
Geographic weights for SNASare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
FANG geography
SNAS geography
FANG scores 5.2/10 and SNAS scores 1.7/10 on this comparison. FANG has the higher overall comparison score.
FANG may suit investors who: growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns).
SNAS may suit investors who: growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns).
FANG and SNAS 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.
FANG has the lower management fee. FANG charges 0.35% per year ($35 per year on a $10,000 investment) and SNAS charges 1% per year ($100 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $65 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
FANG (Global X FANG+ ETF) manages approximately $1.7B and SNAS (Global X Ultra Short Nasdaq 100 Complex ETF) manages approximately $61.73M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
FANG and SNAS 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. FANG charges 0.35% and SNAS charges 1%, so FANG 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.
FANG full profile →SNAS full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →