VanEck S&P/ASX MidCap ETF vs Betashares FTSE RAFI Australia 200 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.
MVE and QOZ are both Australian Broad Market ETFs. QOZ has the lower management fee (0.35% vs 0.45% p.a.). Holdings overlap is approximately 11% estimated (top 50 holdings).
VanEck S&P/ASX MidCap ETF
VanEck
Betashares FTSE RAFI Australia 200 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 MVE and QOZ:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
QOZ has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
QOZ is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
QOZ spreads exposure across more holdings (MVE 50, QOZ 199); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
MVE distributes approximately 2.75% and QOZ approximately 3.7%; QOZ 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: top 50 holdings.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures.
MVE top holdings
QOZ top holdings
Sector weights for MVEare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
MVE sectors
QOZ sectors
Geographic weights for MVEare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
MVE geography
QOZ geography
There is no single right choice between MVE and QOZ - 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.
MVE and QOZ have approximately 11% estimated holdings overlap (top 50 holdings). This is considered low overlap, estimated from listed top holdings rather than the full constituent lists.
QOZ has the lower management fee. MVE charges 0.45% per year ($45 per year on a $10,000 investment) and QOZ charges 0.35% per year ($35 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $10 per year per $10,000 invested.
MVE (VanEck S&P/ASX MidCap ETF) manages approximately $469.03M and QOZ (Betashares FTSE RAFI Australia 200 ETF) manages approximately $1.1B. 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 11% 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. MVE charges 0.45% and QOZ charges 0.35%, so QOZ has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 11% 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.
MVE full profile →QOZ full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →