Best Performing ETFs in Australia: Which Funds Actually Beat Their Benchmark?

We analysed every ASX-listed ETF with sufficient return history to answer one question: who actually delivers?

The answer is not what the fund managers' marketing decks would have you believe. Most active managers underperform. Most index ETFs track their benchmark within a few basis points. A small number of factor-tilted index ETFs have quietly beaten their benchmarks by significant margins — without charging active fees. And a handful of active ETFs have genuinely earned their keep.

Here's the data.

The SPIVA Reality Check

Before we look at ASX-listed ETFs, the global evidence on active management needs a moment.

SPIVA (S&P Indices Versus Active) is the gold standard for measuring how many active managers actually beat their benchmark index. The SPIVA Australia Year-End 2025 report is unambiguous:

Global equity funds fare no better: 70% underperformed in 2025 alone, rising to 95%+ over 10–15 years.

Our own analysis of active ETFs listed on the ASX tells the same story:

The pattern is consistent: the longer you hold, the worse the odds. Even professional stock pickers with billion-dollar research teams, global analyst networks, and access to company management cannot consistently beat a simple index. Fees compound in the wrong direction. Manager skill — to the extent it exists — does not reliably persist.

This is not an argument against ever buying an active ETF. It is an argument for knowing exactly what the data says before you do.

Index ETFs: Do They Actually Track Their Benchmark?

Index ETFs promise to deliver benchmark returns minus their management expense ratio (MER). In theory, a 0.04% MER fund should underperform its benchmark by approximately 0.04% per year. In practice, tracking error, dividend handling, securities lending income, and index sampling all affect the result.

The good news: Australia's best index ETFs track extraordinarily well. The top performers come in at exactly their MER or better — some even generate a small positive excess return through securities lending or superior index replication.

Top 10 Best-Tracking Index ETFs (5-Year Excess Return vs Benchmark)

Key takeaways:

• A200 at 0.04% MER is Australia's cheapest broad market ETF and tracks within 0.3% — exceptional value.

• STW and IVV deliver near-perfect benchmark tracking at near-zero cost.

• ESG-screened E200 has actually outperformed the plain ASX 200 by 0.5% over five years, partly because ESG screens have excluded some underperformers.

For more on how fees affect long-term outcomes, see our analysis: Everything You Need to Know About ETF Fees and Performance.

The Factor Edge: Index ETFs That Beat Their Benchmark

Here is where it gets interesting.

A subset of "index" ETFs do not track the standard market-cap-weighted benchmark — they follow alternative index methodologies that tilt toward specific factors: quality, value, momentum, or fundamental weighting. These are sometimes called "smart beta" or "factor ETFs."

They are not active management. There is no fund manager making stock-picking decisions. They are rules-based, systematic, and fully transparent. But because they deviate from market-cap weighting, they can — and sometimes do — produce different returns.

Over five years, several have beaten their cap-weighted benchmarks by meaningful margins.

Factor ETFs That Beat Their Benchmark (5-Year, vs Cap-Weighted Equivalent)

QOZ is the standout. Using Research Affiliates' Fundamental Index (RAFI) methodology — which weights stocks by revenue, cash flow, dividends, and book value rather than market cap — it has outperformed the cap-weighted ASX 200 by 14.3% over five years. The MER is a modest 0.40%.

QUAL screens for high return-on-equity, low earnings variability, and low leverage — characteristics that have rewarded investors with 4.4% excess return over MSCI World over five years, at a 0.40% MER.

The important caveat: factor premiums are not guaranteed. They can underperform for extended periods. But they cost a fraction of active management fees and deliver systematic, transparent exposures — not stock-picking bets. For context, compare this to whether the cheapest ETF is always the best.

Active ETFs: The 5 That Actually Beat the Index

Out of 27 active ETFs with three years of return history on the ASX, five beat their benchmark over three years. Out of 12 with five years of history, only one cleared the bar.

These numbers echo SPIVA exactly. But unlike the broader active management universe, these five are worth naming — they have delivered genuine alpha over a meaningful time period.

Active ETFs That Beat Their Benchmark Over 3 Years

Note on MAET: Munro Global Growth charges a performance fee in addition to its base MER of 1.35%. Total cost in outperforming years will be higher than the headline figure suggests. Factor this into your assessment of after-fee alpha.

Active ETFs That Beat Their Benchmark Over 5 Years

VVLU is technically classified as "active" by Vanguard, but in practice it operates as a systematic, rules-based value factor strategy — not a discretionary stock-picking fund. At 0.28% MER with a 2.45% five-year excess return, it sits closer to a smart-beta ETF than to the active funds above. Its outperformance is consistent with the documented value factor premium, not individual manager skill.

These are the survivors. Many active ETFs that underperformed have since closed, been merged, or been delisted. Survivorship bias means the historical hit rate for active ETFs is likely even worse than our 8% figure at five years. The five that beat their benchmark over three years are genuine outperformers — but past outperformance in active management has weak predictive power for future outperformance.

For deeper context on the active vs passive debate, see: Active vs Passive ETFs: The Data That Settles the Debate.

The Verdict: Best Index ETFs and Best Active ETFs

Best Index ETFs by Category

These are the ETFs that have either tracked their benchmark most precisely (lowest tracking error, lowest fee) or delivered the best risk-adjusted factor returns over five years.

Best Active ETFs (The Rare Few That Justify Their Fees)

These are the only active ETFs with a multi-year track record of genuine benchmark-beating returns on the ASX.

The default should be index. Active ETFs are only appropriate if you have researched the manager, understand their strategy, accept that the odds are historically against you, and are prepared to monitor performance over time.

If you want factor exposure without active-management risk, factor ETFs like QOZ and QUAL are the better path — systematic, transparent, and priced far below active management fees.

For a step-by-step guide to building a portfolio around these principles, see: How to Build Your Core Portfolio with ETFs.

Summary: What the Data Tells You

1. Most active managers underperform — and the longer you hold, the worse it gets.
SPIVA data shows 89% of Australian active managers underperformed over five years. Our ASX active ETF analysis shows the same pattern: 37% beat their benchmark at one year, 19% at three years, just 8% at five years.

2. Index ETFs do what they promise.
The best vanilla trackers — A200, STW, IVV — deliver benchmark returns minus a handful of basis points. At 0.04% MER, the cost of precision is essentially nothing.

3. Factor ETFs are the quiet outperformers.
QOZ (+14.3%), QUAL (+4.4%), and VLUE (+0.9%) have beaten their cap-weighted benchmarks over five years — without active management, without stock picking, and at fees well below active ETF pricing. If you want to do better than vanilla, start here.

4. Only four active ETFs have a genuine multi-year track record of outperformance.
WCMQ, HYGG, MAET, and LSGE have beaten their benchmarks over three years. Even they may not sustain it — past active outperformance has weak predictive power. If you choose one, do the research, monitor it annually, and be prepared to switch to an index ETF if the edge disappears.

Sources: SPIVA Australia Year-End 2025, ReviewETF — ETF return and MER data as of 2025.

Want to go deeper?

• Explore every ASX-listed ETF at ReviewETF

• Subscribe to the ETF Adviser Substack for ongoing analysis

• Watch ETF breakdowns on YouTube @ETFadviser