At a glance
Side-by-side comparison
| Metric |
CETF
VanEck FTSE China A50 ETF
|
CNEW
VanEck China New Economy ETF
|
|---|---|---|
| Snapshot | ||
| Provider |
VanEck
|
VanEck
|
| Tracks index |
FTSE China A50 Index
|
—
|
| Categories |
Asia, EM
|
Asia, EM
|
| Listed since |
—
|
—
|
| Fund size (AUM) |
$34m
|
$96m
|
| Cost & income | ||
| Management fee |
0.6%
|
0.95%
|
| Dividend yield |
2%
|
0.76%
|
| Franking |
0%
|
0%
|
| Turnover |
—
|
—
|
| Tax drag | 0.64% | 0.24% |
| Returns |
Tax bracket
|
|
| 1-year return |
-4.9%
net
|
-2.7%
net
|
| 3-year return |
6.4%
net
|
7%
net
|
| 5-year return |
0%
net
|
-1.1%
net
|
| 10-year return |
3.8%
net
|
—
|
| Risk | ||
| Volatility (3y) |
16.6%
|
21%
|
| Volatility (5y) |
19.2%
|
22.1%
|
| Volatility (10y) |
17.8%
|
—
|
| Sharpe ratio (3y) |
0.2
|
0.22
|
| Sharpe ratio (5y) |
—
|
—
|
| Sharpe ratio (10y) |
0.17
|
—
|
| Bid/ask spread |
—
|
—
|
marks the strongest fund in each row. “net” shows the after-tax return at your selected bracket. “—” means we don’t have that data point yet.
Each fund at a glance
Frequently Asked Questions
CETF and CNEW are 2 Australian-listed ETFs we compare side by side. CETF carries the lower management fee (0.6%). Over 5 years, CETF has delivered the higher total return (0% a year). The table above breaks down fees, returns, income and risk for each.
CETF has the lower management fee at 0.6% a year, versus CNEW 0.95%.
Over the past 5 years, CETF has delivered the higher total return at 0% a year. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
CETF pays the higher at 2%. Remember distributions are taxed each year at your marginal rate.
CNEW is the larger fund by assets ($96m). Larger funds are typically more liquid and trade on tighter spreads.
Related comparisons
General information only, generated from each fund's published data — not personal financial advice. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. Consider your own circumstances or seek licensed advice before investing.