Fidelity Australian High Conviction Active ETF vs iShares Core S&P/ASX 200 ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap. General information only.
FHCO may suit cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees. IOZ may suit cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees.
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.
Fidelity Australian High Conviction Active ETF
Other
iShares Core S&P/ASX 200 ETF
BlackRock (iShares)
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.
FHCO and IOZ are both Australian Broad Market ETFs: FHCO tracks the and IOZ tracks the S&P/ASX 200. IOZ has the lower management fee (0.05% vs 0.85% 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.
FHCO charges 0.85% p.a. and IOZ charges 0.05% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
FHCO manages $1.99M and IOZ manages $8.4B; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
FHCO holds 0 positions and IOZ holds 205; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
FHCO distributes approximately 0% (N/A) and IOZ approximately 3.4% (Quarterly); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Over the compared period FHCO returned 0.9% and IOZ returned 8.5%. 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.
FHCO top holdings
IOZ top holdings
Sector weights for FHCOare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
FHCO sectors
IOZ sectors
Geographic weights for FHCOare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
FHCO geography
IOZ geography
FHCO scores 0.7/10 and IOZ scores 7.7/10 on this comparison. IOZ has the higher overall comparison score.
FHCO may suit investors who: cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees.
IOZ may suit investors who: cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees.
FHCO and IOZ 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.
IOZ has the lower management fee. FHCO charges 0.85% per year ($85 per year on a $10,000 investment) and IOZ charges 0.05% per year ($5 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $80 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
FHCO (Fidelity Australian High Conviction Active ETF) manages approximately $1.99M and IOZ (iShares Core S&P/ASX 200 ETF) manages approximately $8.4B. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
FHCO and IOZ 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. FHCO charges 0.85% and IOZ charges 0.05%, so IOZ 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.
FHCO full profile →IOZ full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →