VanEck Australian Property ETF vs Quay Global Real Estate Fund (AUD Hedged) 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.
MVA and QGFH are both Property ETFs. MVA has the lower management fee (0.35% vs 0.92% p.a.). Holdings overlap is approximately 6% estimated (estimated, limited data).
VanEck Australian Property ETF
VanEck
Quay Global Real Estate Fund (AUD Hedged) 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
There is no single "better" fund here - which suits you depends on your goals. The clearest differences between MVA and QGFH:
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): MVA has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
Fund size (assets): MVA is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
Holdings breadth: QGFH spreads exposure across more holdings (MVA 12, QGFH 27); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
Income (distribution yield): MVA distributes approximately 4.4% and QGFH approximately 1.14%; MVA 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: 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).
MVA top holdings
QGFH top holdings
This issuer does not publish full holdings for this fund, so they are not shown here.
Sector weights for QGFH are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
MVA sectors
QGFH sectors
Geographic weights for QGFH are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
MVA geography
QGFH geography
There is no single right choice between MVA and QGFH - 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.
MVA and QGFH have approximately 6% estimated holdings overlap (estimated, limited data). This is considered low overlap, estimated from listed top holdings rather than the full constituent lists.
MVA has the lower management fee. MVA charges 0.35% per year ($35 per year on a $10,000 investment) and QGFH charges 0.92% per year ($92 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $57 per year per $10,000 invested.
MVA (VanEck Australian Property ETF) manages approximately $838.32M and QGFH (Quay Global Real Estate Fund (AUD Hedged) Active ETF) manages approximately $594.3M. 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 6% 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. MVA charges 0.35% and QGFH charges 0.92%, so MVA has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 6% 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.
MVA full profile →QGFH full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →