Betashares Global Gold Miners Currency Hedged ETF vs VanEck Uranium and Energy Innovation ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap.
Scored across Cost (35%), Fund size (20%), Holdings breadth (25%), Income (20%). 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.
MNRS and URAN are both Thematic ETFs. MNRS has the lower management fee (0.57% vs 0.59% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
Betashares Global Gold Miners Currency Hedged ETF
BetaShares
VanEck Uranium and Energy Innovation ETF
VanEck
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 URAN:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
MNRS has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
MNRS is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
MNRS spreads exposure across more holdings (MNRS 57, URAN 25); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
MNRS distributes approximately 0.2% and URAN approximately 0%; 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.
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 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures.
MNRS top holdings
URAN top holdings
Based on each fund's most recently published sector and geographic weightings; figures are approximate. Full breakdowns are shown below.
Sector weights for URANare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
MNRS sectors
URAN sectors
MNRS geography
URAN geography
There is no single right choice between MNRS and URAN - 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 URAN do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
MNRS has the lower management fee. MNRS charges 0.57% per year ($57 per year on a $10,000 investment) and URAN charges 0.59% per year ($59 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $2 per year per $10,000 invested.
MNRS (Betashares Global Gold Miners Currency Hedged ETF) manages approximately $248.9M and URAN (VanEck Uranium and Energy Innovation ETF) manages approximately $15.02M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
MNRS and URAN 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. MNRS charges 0.57% and URAN charges 0.59%, so MNRS 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.
MNRS full profile →URAN full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →