iShares S&P/ASX 20 ETF vs Betashares FTSE RAFI Australia 200 ETF
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 S&P/ASX 20 ETF
BlackRock (iShares)
Betashares FTSE RAFI Australia 200 ETF
BetaShares
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.
ILC and QOZ are both Australian Broad Market ETFs: ILC tracks the S&P/ASX 20 Index and QOZ tracks the FTSE RAFI Australia 200 Index. ILC has the lower management fee (0.24% vs 0.35% p.a.). Holdings overlap is approximately 62% estimated (top 23 holdings). General information only, not financial advice.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
ILC charges 0.24% p.a. and QOZ charges 0.35% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
ILC manages $744.17M and QOZ manages $1.1B; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
ILC holds 23 positions and QOZ holds 199; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
ILC distributes approximately 4.02% (Quarterly) and QOZ approximately 3.7% (Semi-annually); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Over the compared period ILC returned 12.5% and QOZ returned 11.3%. 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 shared holdings ranked by overlap contribution, the smaller of each company's weight in the two funds. Basis: top 23 holdings. General information only.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures. General information only.
ILC top holdings
QOZ top holdings
ILC sectors
QOZ sectors
ILC geography
QOZ geography
ILC scores 6.6/10 and QOZ scores 6.7/10 on this comparison. The two are effectively level overall.
ILC may suit investors who: investors seeking income and dividend distributions.
QOZ may suit investors who: investors who prefer larger, more established funds.
ILC and QOZ have approximately 62% estimated holdings overlap (top 23 holdings). This is considered moderate overlap, estimated from listed top holdings rather than the full constituent lists. General information only, not financial advice.
ILC has the lower management fee. ILC charges 0.24% per year ($24 per year on a $10,000 investment) and QOZ charges 0.35% per year ($35 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $11 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
ILC (iShares S&P/ASX 20 ETF) manages approximately $744.17M and QOZ (Betashares FTSE RAFI Australia 200 ETF) manages approximately $1.1B. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
You can hold both, but with approximately 62% estimated holdings overlap the two funds share a moderate proportion of holdings, so there is some duplicated exposure. Whether that suits you depends on your own objectives. General information only, not financial advice.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. ILC charges 0.24% and QOZ charges 0.35%, so ILC has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 62% estimated holdings overlap. 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.
ILC full profile →QOZ full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →