iShares Bitcoin ETF vs VanEck FTSE Global Infrastructure (AUD Hedged) ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap. General information only.
IBIT may suit cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees. IFRA may suit investors who prefer larger, more established funds.
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.
iShares Bitcoin ETF
BlackRock (iShares)
VanEck FTSE Global Infrastructure (AUD Hedged) ETF
VanEck
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.
IBIT and IFRA are both Thematic ETFs: IBIT tracks the and IFRA tracks the FTSE Developed Core Infrastructure 50/50 Index (AUD Hedged). IBIT has the lower management fee (0.25% vs 0.31% 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.
IBIT charges 0.25% p.a. and IFRA charges 0.31% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
IBIT manages $24.23M and IFRA manages $2.0B; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
IBIT holds 0 positions and IFRA holds 136; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
IBIT distributes approximately 0% (N/A) and IFRA approximately 3% (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.
IBIT top holdings
IFRA top holdings
Sector weights for IBITare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
IBIT sectors
IFRA sectors
Geographic weights for IBITare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
IBIT geography
IFRA geography
IBIT scores 3.5/10 and IFRA scores 6.1/10 on this comparison. IFRA has the higher overall comparison score.
IBIT may suit investors who: cost-conscious investors who prioritise lower ongoing fees.
IFRA may suit investors who: investors who prefer larger, more established funds.
IBIT and IFRA 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.
IBIT has the lower management fee. IBIT charges 0.25% per year ($25 per year on a $10,000 investment) and IFRA charges 0.31% per year ($31 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $6 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
IBIT (iShares Bitcoin ETF) manages approximately $24.23M and IFRA (VanEck FTSE Global Infrastructure (AUD Hedged) ETF) manages approximately $2.0B. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
IBIT and IFRA 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. IBIT charges 0.25% and IFRA charges 0.31%, so IBIT 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.
IBIT full profile →IFRA full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →