Betashares Global Gold Miners Currency Hedged ETF vs BetaShares NASDAQ 100 Equal Weight ETF
Overlap is calculated from each fund's full published holdings list. Where there are no shared listed holdings it is shown as not reliably estimable.
MNRS and QNDQ are both Thematic ETFs. MNRS tracks the NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index (Hedged into AUD) and QNDQ tracks the Nasdaq-100 Index. QNDQ has the lower management fee (0.48% vs 0.57% p.a.). Holdings overlap is approximately 0% (full holdings data).
Betashares Global Gold Miners Currency Hedged ETF
BetaShares
BetaShares NASDAQ 100 Equal Weight ETF
BetaShares
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
There is no single "better" fund here - which suits you depends on your goals. The clearest differences between MNRS and QNDQ:
Green highlights the leading comparison score, the factually lower fee, or the higher scale or 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.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
Cost (management fee): QNDQ has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
Fund size (assets): MNRS is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
Holdings breadth: QNDQ spreads exposure across more holdings (MNRS 47, QNDQ 103); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
Income (distribution yield): MNRS distributes approximately 9.5% and QNDQ approximately 2.7%; MNRS 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.
General information only, not financial advice. ETFLens does not hold an AFSL. Always read the relevant PDS and consider seeking advice from a licensed financial adviser.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns or 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: full holdings data.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures.
MNRS top holdings
QNDQ top holdings
Based on each fund's most recently published sector and geographic weightings; figures are approximate. Full breakdowns are shown below.
MNRS sectors
QNDQ sectors
Geographic weights for QNDQ are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
MNRS geography
QNDQ geography
There is no single right choice between MNRS and QNDQ - it depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. The key differences between the two funds are summarised near the top of this page, with the full side-by-side data below.
MNRS and QNDQ have approximately 0% holdings overlap, based on each fund's full published holdings list. This is considered low overlap.
QNDQ has the lower management fee. MNRS charges 0.57% per year ($57 per year on a $10,000 investment) and QNDQ charges 0.48% per year ($48 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $9 per year per $10,000 invested.
MNRS (Betashares Global Gold Miners Currency Hedged ETF) manages approximately $248.9M and QNDQ (BetaShares NASDAQ 100 Equal Weight ETF) manages approximately $20.2M. 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 0% estimated holdings overlap the two funds hold mostly different companies, so they can be more complementary. 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. MNRS charges 0.57% and QNDQ charges 0.48%, so QNDQ has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 0% 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 →View full ETF profiles
Holdings, fees, sectors and distributions for each fund.
MNRS full profile →QNDQ full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →