VanEck FTSE Global Infrastructure (AUD Hedged) ETF vs Magellan Infra Fund (Currency Hedged) - Active ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap.
Scored across Cost, Fund size, Holdings breadth and Income. Past performance is excluded.
See full breakdown ↓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.
VanEck FTSE Global Infrastructure (AUD Hedged) ETF
VanEck
Magellan Infra Fund (Currency Hedged) - Active ETF
Magellan
Comparison scores reflect how each ETF compares to the other on these specific dimensions only. They are not absolute ratings or recommendations.
IFRA and MICH are both Thematic ETFs: IFRA tracks the FTSE Developed Core Infrastructure 50/50 Index (AUD Hedged) and MICH tracks the . IFRA has the lower management fee (0.31% vs 1.05% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
Key differences at a glance
Neither IFRA nor MICH is the "right" pick for everyone; it comes down to what you want from the holding. Where they differ most:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
IFRA has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
IFRA is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
IFRA spreads exposure across more holdings (IFRA 136, MICH 0); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
IFRA distributes approximately 3% and MICH approximately 3.37%; MICH 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.
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.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures.
IFRA top holdings
MICH top holdings
Holdings not published for this fund type.
Sector weights for MICHare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
IFRA sectors
MICH sectors
Geographic weights for MICHare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
IFRA geography
MICH geography
Whether IFRA or MICH fits comes down to your goals, time horizon and what you already hold. The clearest differences are summarised near the top of this page, with the full data below.
IFRA and MICH do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
IFRA has the lower management fee. IFRA charges 0.31% per year ($31 per year on a $10,000 investment) and MICH charges 1.05% per year ($105 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $74 per year per $10,000 invested.
IFRA (VanEck FTSE Global Infrastructure (AUD Hedged) ETF) manages approximately $2.0B and MICH (Magellan Infra Fund (Currency Hedged) - Active ETF) manages approximately $522.36M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
IFRA and MICH 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. IFRA charges 0.31% and MICH charges 1.05%, so IFRA 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 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.
IFRA full profile →MICH full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →