Betashares Australian Credit Income Active ETF vs Seed Financial Income Fund Active ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap. General information only.
HBRD may suit investors seeking income and dividend distributions. SFIF may suit investors seeking income and dividend distributions.
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.
Betashares Australian Credit Income Active ETF
BetaShares
Seed Financial Income Fund Active ETF
Other
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.
HBRD and SFIF are both Income & Dividends ETFs: HBRD tracks the Actively managed and SFIF tracks the . Both charge 0.55% 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.
Both charge about 0.55% p.a. in management fees.
HBRD manages $2.0B and SFIF manages $44.14M; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
HBRD holds 40 positions and SFIF holds 0; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
HBRD distributes approximately 5% (Monthly) and SFIF approximately 2.31% (Monthly); 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.
HBRD top holdings
SFIF top holdings
Sector weights for SFIFare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
HBRD sectors
SFIF sectors
Geographic weights for SFIFare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
HBRD geography
SFIF geography
HBRD scores 5.5/10 and SFIF scores 4.0/10 on this comparison. HBRD has the higher overall comparison score.
HBRD may suit investors who: investors seeking income and dividend distributions.
SFIF may suit investors who: investors seeking income and dividend distributions.
HBRD and SFIF 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.
HBRD and SFIF charge the same management fee of 0.55% per year. General information only, not financial advice.
HBRD (Betashares Australian Credit Income Active ETF) manages approximately $2.0B and SFIF (Seed Financial Income Fund Active ETF) manages approximately $44.14M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
HBRD and SFIF 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. HBRD charges 0.55% and SFIF charges 0.55%, the same 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.
HBRD full profile →SFIF full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →