Vaneck Australian Fixed Rate Subordinated Debt ETF vs iShares Core Composite Bond ETF
These ETFs invest in different asset classes (shares vs bonds). They are unlikely to share holdings. General information only.
FSUB may suit cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees. IAF may suit investors seeking broad market exposure.
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. These funds invest in different markets, so the expected overlap is approximately 0%.
Vaneck Australian Fixed Rate Subordinated Debt ETF
VanEck
iShares Core Composite Bond 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.
FSUB and IAF are both Bonds ETFs: FSUB tracks the and IAF tracks the Bloomberg AusBond Composite 0+ Yr Index. IAF has the lower management fee (0.1% vs 0.29% 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.
FSUB charges 0.29% p.a. and IAF charges 0.1% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
FSUB manages $33.75M and IAF manages $3.6B; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
FSUB holds 16 positions and IAF holds 732; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
FSUB distributes approximately 2.26% (Monthly) and IAF approximately 3.4% (Quarterly); 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.
FSUB top holdings
IAF top holdings
Sector weights for FSUBare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
FSUB sectors
IAF sectors
Geographic weights for FSUBare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
FSUB geography
IAF geography
FSUB scores 4.7/10 and IAF scores 7.6/10 on this comparison. IAF has the higher overall comparison score.
FSUB may suit investors who: cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees.
IAF may suit investors who: investors seeking broad market exposure.
FSUB and IAF 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.
IAF has the lower management fee. FSUB charges 0.29% per year ($29 per year on a $10,000 investment) and IAF charges 0.1% per year ($10 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $19 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
FSUB (Vaneck Australian Fixed Rate Subordinated Debt ETF) manages approximately $33.75M and IAF (iShares Core Composite Bond ETF) manages approximately $3.6B. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
FSUB and IAF 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. FSUB charges 0.29% and IAF charges 0.1%, so IAF 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.
FSUB full profile →IAF full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →