Betashares Nasdaq 100 ETF vs Global X Russell 2000 ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap. General information only.
NDQ may suit growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns). RSSL may suit investors seeking broad market exposure.
Scored across Cost, Scale, Diversification, Income and Performance. General information only, not financial advice.
See full breakdown ↓General information only, not financial advice.
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.
Betashares Nasdaq 100 ETF
BetaShares
Global X Russell 2000 ETF
Global X
Comparison scores reflect how each ETF compares to the other on these specific dimensions only. They are not absolute ratings or recommendations. General information only, not financial advice.
NDQ and RSSL are both US Shares ETFs: NDQ tracks the Nasdaq-100 Index and RSSL tracks the Russell 2000 Index. RSSL has the lower management fee (0.18% vs 0.48% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair. General information only, not financial advice.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
NDQ charges 0.48% p.a. and RSSL charges 0.18% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
NDQ manages $8.7B and RSSL manages $18.82M; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
NDQ holds 103 positions and RSSL holds 1,647; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
NDQ distributes approximately 1% (Semi-annually) and RSSL approximately 0.55% (Quarterly); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Over the compared period NDQ returned 16.5% and RSSL returned 26.3%. 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.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. Past distributions are not a reliable indicator of future distributions. General information only.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures. General information only.
NDQ top holdings
RSSL top holdings
Sector weights for RSSLare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
NDQ sectors
RSSL sectors
Geographic weights for RSSLare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
NDQ geography
RSSL geography
NDQ scores 5.7/10 and RSSL scores 6.6/10 on this comparison. RSSL has the higher overall comparison score.
NDQ may suit investors who: growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns).
RSSL may suit investors who: investors seeking broad market exposure.
NDQ and RSSL do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page. General information only, not financial advice.
RSSL has the lower management fee. NDQ charges 0.48% per year ($48 per year on a $10,000 investment) and RSSL charges 0.18% per year ($18 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $30 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
NDQ (Betashares Nasdaq 100 ETF) manages approximately $8.7B and RSSL (Global X Russell 2000 ETF) manages approximately $18.82M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
NDQ and RSSL do not share enough listed top holdings to estimate overlap, so whether holding both duplicates your exposure depends on their full constituent lists. General information only, not financial advice.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. NDQ charges 0.48% and RSSL charges 0.18%, so RSSL 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, not financial advice.
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.
NDQ full profile →RSSL full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →