VanEck Australian Banks ETF vs VanEck Australian Equal Weight 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.
MVB and MVW are both Australian Broad Market ETFs. MVB has the lower management fee (0.28% vs 0.35% p.a.). Holdings overlap is approximately 9% estimated (estimated, limited data).
VanEck Australian Banks ETF
VanEck
VanEck Australian Equal Weight 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
Which of MVB and MVW fits depends on your objectives, not on one being superior. Where the two funds differ most:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
MVB has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
MVW is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
MVW spreads exposure across more holdings (MVB 7, MVW 75); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
MVB distributes approximately 5.05% and MVW approximately 3.2%; MVB 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 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.
MVB top holdings
MVW top holdings
Sector weights for MVBare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
MVB sectors
MVW sectors
Geographic weights for MVBare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
MVB geography
MVW geography
Choosing between MVB and MVW depends on your goals, time horizon and current holdings, not on one being the right answer for everyone. The main differences are summarised above, with the complete data below.
MVB and MVW have approximately 9% estimated holdings overlap (estimated, limited data). This is considered low overlap, estimated from listed top holdings rather than the full constituent lists.
MVB has the lower management fee. MVB charges 0.28% per year ($28 per year on a $10,000 investment) and MVW charges 0.35% per year ($35 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $7 per year per $10,000 invested.
MVB (VanEck Australian Banks ETF) manages approximately $287.63M and MVW (VanEck Australian Equal Weight ETF) manages approximately $3.2B. 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 9% 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. MVB charges 0.28% and MVW charges 0.35%, so MVB has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 9% 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.
MVB full profile →MVW full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →