iShares Global 100 ETF vs Nanuk New World Fund Active ETF
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.
IOO and NNUK are highly similar Global Broad Market ETFs, with approximately 87% estimated (estimated, limited data) holdings overlap. IOO has the lower management fee (0.4% vs 1.1% p.a.).
iShares Global 100 ETF
BlackRock (iShares)
Nanuk New World 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.
Key differences at a glance
Which of IOO and NNUK fits depends on your objectives, not on one being superior. Where the two funds differ most:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
IOO has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
IOO is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
IOO spreads exposure across more holdings (IOO 117, NNUK 70); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
IOO distributes approximately 1.08% and NNUK approximately 0%; IOO 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; sector and geography figures for some funds are category-inferred estimates, clearly labelled on each fund's page.
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 shared holdings ranked by overlap contribution, the smaller of each company's weight in the two funds. Basis: estimated, limited data.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures. Where a fund does not publish full holdings, its list is not shown here (a category-based estimate appears on the fund page).
IOO top holdings
NNUK top holdings
This issuer does not publish full holdings for this fund, so they are not shown here.
Sector weights for NNUKare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
IOO sectors
NNUK sectors
Geographic weights for NNUKare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
IOO geography
NNUK geography
Choosing between IOO and NNUK depends on your goals, time horizon and current holdings, not on one being the right answer for everyone. The main differences are summarised above, with the complete data below.
IOO and NNUK have approximately 87% estimated holdings overlap (estimated, limited data). This is considered high overlap, estimated from listed top holdings rather than the full constituent lists.
IOO has the lower management fee. IOO charges 0.4% per year ($40 per year on a $10,000 investment) and NNUK charges 1.1% per year ($110 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $70 per year per $10,000 invested.
IOO (iShares Global 100 ETF) manages approximately $5.7B and NNUK (Nanuk New World Fund Active ETF) manages approximately $847.58M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
You can hold both, but with approximately 87% estimated holdings overlap the two funds hold a high proportion of the same companies, so holding both means paying two sets of management fees on largely the same exposure. Whether that suits you depends on your own objectives.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. IOO charges 0.4% and NNUK charges 1.1%, so IOO has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 87% 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.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 →Check the CGT cost of switching
ProBefore consolidating overlapping ETFs, model the capital gains tax impact with the ETF Switch Calculator.
Calculate CGT cost →View full ETF profiles
Holdings, fees, sectors and distributions for each fund.
IOO full profile →NNUK full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →