Munro Concentrated Global Growth Active ETF vs VanEck MSCI International Quality 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.
Munro Concentrated Global Growth Active ETF
Other
VanEck MSCI International Quality 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.
MCGG and QUAL are highly similar Global Broad Market ETFs, with approximately 78% estimated (estimated, limited data) holdings overlap. QUAL has the lower management fee (0.4% vs 0.7% p.a.). General information only, not financial advice.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
MCGG charges 0.7% p.a. and QUAL charges 0.4% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
MCGG manages $102.33M and QUAL manages $8.4B; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
MCGG holds 0 positions and QUAL holds 295; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
MCGG distributes approximately 0% (N/A) and QUAL approximately 1.4% (Semi-annually); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Over the compared period MCGG returned 26.7% and QUAL returned 14.1%. 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: estimated, limited data. General information only.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures. General information only.
MCGG top holdings
QUAL top holdings
Sector weights for MCGGare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
MCGG sectors
QUAL sectors
Geographic weights for MCGGare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
MCGG geography
QUAL geography
MCGG scores 3.4/10 and QUAL scores 6.8/10 on this comparison. QUAL has the higher overall comparison score.
MCGG may suit investors who: growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns).
QUAL may suit investors who: investors who prefer larger, more established funds.
MCGG and QUAL have approximately 78% estimated holdings overlap (estimated, limited data). This is considered high overlap, estimated from listed top holdings rather than the full constituent lists. General information only, not financial advice.
QUAL has the lower management fee. MCGG charges 0.7% per year ($70 per year on a $10,000 investment) and QUAL charges 0.4% per year ($40 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $30 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
MCGG (Munro Concentrated Global Growth Active ETF) manages approximately $102.33M and QUAL (VanEck MSCI International Quality ETF) manages approximately $8.4B. 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 78% 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. General information only, not financial advice.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. MCGG charges 0.7% and QUAL charges 0.4%, so QUAL has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 78% 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 →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.
MCGG full profile →QUAL full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →