VanEck Australian Property ETF vs SPDR S&P/ASX 200 Listed Property 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.
MVA and SLF are both Property ETFs. MVA tracks the MVIS Australia A-REITs Index and SLF tracks the S&P/ASX 200 Index. SLF has the lower management fee (0.16% vs 0.35% p.a.). Holdings overlap is approximately 63% (full holdings data).
VanEck Australian Property ETF
VanEck
SPDR S&P/ASX 200 Listed Property ETF
State Street (SPDR)
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
Neither MVA nor SLF is the "right" pick for everyone; it comes down to what you want from the holding. Where they differ most:
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 and the ASX Investment Products report. Fund size, yield, return and holdings figures each state the date they are as at; 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): SLF 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: SLF spreads exposure across more holdings (MVA 12, SLF 18); 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 SLF distributes approximately 4.6%; SLF 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.
Fund sizes as at 30 Sep 2026 for both funds.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. Yields are as at different dates (MVA 31 Mar 2026, SLF 30 Apr 2026), so the two funds' figures are not directly comparable. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns or distributions. These figures may be out of date. Check the fund manager's website for current performance.
Returns as at 30 Sep 2026 for both funds.
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. Listed top holdings as at 30 Oct 2026 for both funds.
MVA top holdings
SLF top holdings
Sector weights for SLF are approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
MVA sectors
SLF sectors
MVA geography
SLF geography
Whether MVA or SLF fits comes down to your goals, time horizon and what you already hold. The clearest differences are summarised near the top of this page, with the full data below.
MVA and SLF have approximately 63% holdings overlap, based on each fund's full published holdings list. This is considered moderate overlap.
SLF has the lower management fee. MVA charges 0.35% per year ($35 per year on a $10,000 investment) and SLF charges 0.16% per year ($16 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $19 per year per $10,000 invested.
MVA (VanEck Australian Property ETF) manages approximately $824.72M and SLF (SPDR S&P/ASX 200 Listed Property ETF) manages approximately $463.73M. Fund sizes as at 30 Sep 2026 for both funds. 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 63% estimated holdings overlap the two funds share a moderate proportion of holdings, so there is some duplicated 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. MVA charges 0.35% and SLF charges 0.16%, so SLF has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 63% 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. 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 →SLF full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →