VanEck Australian Equal Weight ETF vs Spheria Australian Smaller Companies Fund - Active ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap.
Scored across Cost (46.7%), Fund size (26.7%), Income (26.7%). 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.
MVW and SPHX are both Australian Broad Market ETFs. MVW has the lower management fee (0.35% vs 1.1% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
VanEck Australian Equal Weight ETF
VanEck
Spheria Australian Smaller Companies Fund - 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
Neither MVW nor SPHX is the "right" pick for everyone; it comes down to what you want from the holding. Where they differ most:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
MVW 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 distributes approximately 3.2% and SPHX approximately 0%; MVW 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. Where a fund does not publish full holdings, its list is not shown here (a category-based estimate appears on the fund page).
MVW top holdings
SPHX top holdings
This issuer does not publish full holdings for this fund, so they are not shown here.
Sector weights for SPHXare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
MVW sectors
SPHX sectors
Geographic weights for SPHXare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
MVW geography
SPHX geography
Whether MVW or SPHX 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.
MVW and SPHX do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
MVW has the lower management fee. MVW charges 0.35% per year ($35 per year on a $10,000 investment) and SPHX charges 1.1% per year ($110 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $75 per year per $10,000 invested.
MVW (VanEck Australian Equal Weight ETF) manages approximately $3.2B and SPHX (Spheria Australian Smaller Companies Fund - Active ETF) manages approximately $1.59M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
MVW and SPHX 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. MVW charges 0.35% and SPHX charges 1.1%, so MVW 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.
MVW full profile →SPHX full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →