iShares Core FTSE Global Property Ex Australia (AUD Hedged) ETF vs SPDR S&P/ASX 200 Listed Property 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 calculated from each fund's full published holdings list. Where there are no shared listed holdings it is shown as not reliably estimable.
GLPR and SLF are both Property ETFs. GLPR has the lower management fee (0.15% vs 0.16% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
iShares Core FTSE Global Property Ex Australia (AUD Hedged) ETF
BlackRock (iShares)
SPDR S&P/ASX 200 Listed Property ETF
State Street (SPDR)
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
There is no single "better" fund here - which suits you depends on your goals. The clearest differences between GLPR and SLF:
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; 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): GLPR has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
Fund size (assets): GLPR is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
Holdings breadth: GLPR spreads exposure across more holdings (GLPR 337, SLF 18); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
Income (distribution yield): GLPR distributes approximately 5.35% and SLF distributes approximately 4.6%; GLPR 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.
Fund sizes as at 30 Sep 2026 for both funds.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. Yields are as at different dates (GLPR 30 Sep 2026, SLF 30 Apr 2026), so the two funds' figures are not directly comparable. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns or distributions. These figures may be out of date. Check the fund manager's website for current performance.
Returns as at 30 Sep 2026 for both funds.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures. Listed top holdings as at 30 Oct 2026 for both funds.
GLPR top holdings
SLF top holdings
Sector weights for SLF are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
GLPR sectors
SLF sectors
There is no single right choice between GLPR and SLF - it depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. The key differences between the two funds are summarised near the top of this page, with the full side-by-side data below.
GLPR and SLF do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
GLPR has the lower management fee. GLPR charges 0.15% per year ($15 per year on a $10,000 investment) and SLF charges 0.16% per year ($16 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $1 per year per $10,000 invested.
GLPR (iShares Core FTSE Global Property Ex Australia (AUD Hedged) ETF) manages approximately $694.72M and SLF (SPDR S&P/ASX 200 Listed Property ETF) manages approximately $463.73M. Fund sizes as at 30 Sep 2026 for both funds. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
GLPR and SLF 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. GLPR charges 0.15% and SLF charges 0.16%, so GLPR 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.
GLPR full profile →SLF full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →