Global X US Infrastructure Development ETF vs VanEck MSCI International Small Companies Quality ETF
General information only, not financial advice.
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.
Global X US Infrastructure Development ETF
Global X
VanEck MSCI International Small Companies Quality ETF
VanEck
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.
PAVE and QSML are both Thematic ETFs: PAVE tracks the and QSML tracks the . PAVE has the lower management fee (0.47% vs 0.59% p.a.). Holdings overlap is approximately 11% (full holdings data). General information only, not financial advice.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
PAVE charges 0.47% p.a. and QSML charges 0.59% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
PAVE manages $25.97M and QSML manages $1.5B; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
PAVE holds 100 positions and QSML holds 150; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
PAVE distributes approximately 1.21% (Quarterly) and QSML approximately 0.29% (Quarterly); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Over the compared period PAVE returned 30.6% and QSML returned 12.9%. 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 shared holdings ranked by overlap contribution, the smaller of each company's weight in the two funds. Basis: full holdings data. General information only.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures. General information only.
PAVE top holdings
QSML top holdings
Sector weights for PAVEare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
PAVE sectors
QSML sectors
Geographic weights for PAVE and QSMLare approximate, inferred from the fund's category. General information only.
PAVE geography
QSML geography
PAVE scores 4.7/10 and QSML scores 4.9/10 on this comparison. The two are effectively level overall.
PAVE may suit investors who: growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns).
QSML may suit investors who: growth-oriented investors (noting past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns).
PAVE and QSML have approximately 11% holdings overlap, based on each fund's full published holdings list. This is considered low overlap. General information only, not financial advice.
PAVE has the lower management fee. PAVE charges 0.47% per year ($47 per year on a $10,000 investment) and QSML charges 0.59% per year ($59 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $12 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
PAVE (Global X US Infrastructure Development ETF) manages approximately $25.97M and QSML (VanEck MSCI International Small Companies Quality ETF) manages approximately $1.5B. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
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. General information only, not financial advice.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. PAVE charges 0.47% and QSML charges 0.59%, so PAVE 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, 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.
PAVE full profile →QSML full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →