VGS vs BGBL: Which International Shares ETF Should You Buy? (May 2026 Refresh)
This is still the most debated ETF comparison in Australia. VGS is the incumbent — $16.4 billion in assets as at May 2026, the Vanguard brand, and an 11-year live track record. BGBL is the challenger — launched in 2023, less than half the fee, and now sitting on $4.5 billion after the fastest AUM ramp of any global ETF in Australian history. Both give you the same thing: broad international developed-market shares excluding Australia.
So which one should you actually buy in 2026? We compared every data point that matters — and you can run your own side-by-side on our VGS vs BGBL compare page to see the live numbers.
The Snapshot — May 2026
VGS | BGBL | Winner | |
|---|---|---|---|
Full name | Vanguard MSCI Index International Shares ETF | Betashares Global Shares ETF | — |
Issuer | Vanguard | Betashares | — |
MER | 0.18% | 0.08% 🏆 | BGBL |
Index | MSCI World ex-Australia | Solactive GBS Developed Markets ex-AU L&M Cap | — |
Holdings | ~1,500 | ~1,300 | VGS |
AUM | $16.4B 🏆 | $4.5B | VGS |
Listed | November 2014 | May 2023 | VGS |
Unit price | ~$159 | ~$85 🏆 (easier to DCA) | BGBL |
Distribution yield (12m) | ~1.8% | ~1.5% | VGS |
Distribution frequency | Quarterly | Quarterly | Tied |
1Y return | +14.2% | +14.6% 🏆 | BGBL |
3Y return p.a. | +17.8% | +18.07% 🏆 | BGBL |
5Y return p.a. | +13.6% | n/a (too new) | VGS |
10Y return p.a. | +13.3% | n/a | VGS |
Since inception | +12.1% p.a. (11.5 yrs) | +19.33% p.a. (since May 2023) | not comparable |
VGS wins on size, track record and distributions. BGBL wins on fee — and has now marginally out-performed VGS on every comparable timeframe since its launch. The fee gap is still the central question.
The Fee: 0.18% vs 0.08%
BGBL charges less than half the fee of VGS. The annual dollar saving:
Portfolio Size | VGS Fee (0.18%) | BGBL Fee (0.08%) | Annual Saving |
|---|---|---|---|
$10,000 | $18 | $8 | $10 |
$50,000 | $90 | $40 | $50 |
$100,000 | $180 | $80 | $100 |
$500,000 | $900 | $400 | $500 |
$1,000,000 | $1,800 | $800 | $1,000 |
Not life-changing on $100K. But fees compound — silently — for the entire holding period.
Time Horizon | VGS ($100K @ 10% gross) | BGBL ($100K @ 10% gross) | BGBL Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
10 years | $255K | $257K | +$2K |
20 years | $651K | $663K | +$12K |
30 years | $1,661K | $1,707K | +$46K |
Over 30 years, the 0.10% fee gap quietly compounds to $46,000 on a $100K starting balance. That is real money — it just takes decades to show up.
For more on how fees quietly compound across every ETF category, read Everything you need to know about ETF fees and performance.
What You Actually Own
Both ETFs hold the same types of companies — large- and mid-cap stocks from developed markets ex-Australia. The overlap is enormous.
Top 10 Holdings (May 2026)
Company | VGS | BGBL |
|---|---|---|
Nvidia | 5.6% | 5.7% |
Apple | 4.6% | 5.1% |
Microsoft | 3.3% | 3.6% |
Amazon | 3.0% | 3.0% |
Alphabet (A+C) | 4.7% | 4.9% |
Broadcom | 2.2% | 2.3% |
Meta | 1.5% | 1.6% |
Tesla | 1.3% | 1.7% |
JPMorgan | 0.9% | 1.0% |
Berkshire Hathaway | 0.8% | 0.9% |
The top holdings are effectively identical. Same mega-cap tech stocks dominating both funds. Minor weight differences just reflect different index methodologies and rebalancing dates.
Sector Allocation (May 2026)
Sector | VGS | BGBL |
|---|---|---|
Information Technology | 27.5% | 28.4% |
Financials | 16.7% | 16.4% |
Industrials | 11.2% | 10.7% |
Consumer Discretionary | 10.1% | 9.5% |
Health Care | 9.8% | 8.7% |
Communication Services | 8.9% | 9.5% |
Consumer Staples | 5.3% | 5.1% |
Energy | 3.3% | 3.8% |
Materials | 3.0% | 2.8% |
Utilities | 2.6% | 2.4% |
Real Estate | 1.7% | 2.7% |
Maximum sector difference: ~1 percentage point. Functionally identical portfolios.
Country Allocation (May 2026)
Country | VGS | BGBL |
|---|---|---|
United States | 72.6% | 74.0% |
Japan | 5.7% | 6.5% |
United Kingdom | 3.5% | 2.8% |
Canada | 3.4% | 3.3% |
France | 2.4% | 1.9% |
Switzerland | 2.3% | 1.4% |
Germany | 2.2% | 2.1% |
Netherlands | 1.4% | 1.5% |
Sweden | 0.9% | — |
Other | 5.6% | 6.5% |
Both are roughly 73% US, 6% Japan, with the rest spread across Europe. BGBL has a slightly higher US weight (74% vs 72.6%) — this is the largest real structural difference between the two funds.
The Index Difference
VGS | BGBL | |
|---|---|---|
Index | MSCI World ex-Australia | Solactive GBS Developed Markets ex-AU Large & Mid Cap |
Index provider | MSCI (the industry standard) | Solactive (lower-cost alternative) |
Replication | Full replication | Sampling approach |
Holdings | ~1,500 | ~1,300 |
VGS fully replicates the MSCI World ex-Australia index. BGBL uses a sampling approach to track the Solactive index — it holds a representative subset.
Why this matters: Full replication means tighter index tracking. Sampling means slightly fewer holdings but lower trading costs — part of how BGBL can offer 0.08% versus 0.18%. The Solactive index licence is also cheaper than MSCI's.
In practice: The 12-month tracking difference is negligible. Over the 3 years since BGBL launched, the two funds have returned +18.07% p.a. (BGBL) vs +17.8% p.a. (VGS) — BGBL marginally ahead, exactly what you'd expect from the lower fee.
Liquidity and Trading
Metric | VGS | BGBL |
|---|---|---|
AUM (May 2026) | $16.4B | $4.5B |
Spread (typical) | 0.03% | 0.04% |
Listed | Nov 2014 | May 2023 |
VGS is ~3.6x larger and has a marginally tighter spread. For most retail investors, both are deeply liquid — you can buy and sell hundreds of thousands without moving the price. The spread difference (0.03% vs 0.04%) is a one-time hidden cost that buy-and-hold investors pay twice — dwarfed by the ongoing 0.10% MER difference if you hold for any length of time.
Distributions
VGS | BGBL | |
|---|---|---|
Frequency | Quarterly | Quarterly (confirmed) |
12-month yield | ~1.8% | ~1.5% |
VGS still has a longer track record of consistent quarterly payments. BGBL moved to a confirmed quarterly schedule from late 2025 — closing what was historically the biggest non-fee difference between the two.
The yield gap (~1.8% vs ~1.5%) largely reflects timing of accruals and BGBL still building its income runrate. Both funds receive the same underlying dividends from the same companies — the lower stated BGBL yield doesn't mean it earns less, it just retains slightly more inside the fund (which shows up as marginally higher unit-price growth).
For a deeper look at how distribution timing affects your returns, see ETF distributions explained.
Track Record
VGS now has 11.5 years of live performance. A $10,000 investment at the November 2014 launch (distributions reinvested) is worth roughly $33,000 as at May 2026 — about 11.0% p.a. over the period.
BGBL has 3 years of live data and 5-year index back-test of +13.74% p.a. Since BGBL's May 2023 inception, the fund has returned approximately +19.33% p.a. — slightly ahead of VGS over the matching period, consistent with the fee gap.
The honest question is: are you comfortable with a 3-year live track record? The back-test is strong, the live returns track VGS closely, and the index itself is a known quantity. But some investors still prefer the certainty of an 11-year live record.
The Verdict
For new money in 2026, BGBL is the rational choice on fees. It charges less than half what VGS charges, holds essentially the same companies, has matched or marginally beaten VGS every comparable period since launch, and now distributes quarterly. On a $100K investment over 30 years, the fee saving compounds to $46,000.
For existing VGS holders, don't sell to switch. Selling triggers a capital gains tax event that almost always costs more than the fee saving — especially if you have multiple years of embedded gains. The 0.10% fee difference does not justify a CGT hit. Add new money into BGBL and hold the VGS you already own.
VGS still wins on:
Liquidity (3.6x the AUM, marginally tighter spread)
Track record (11 years live vs 3 years live)
Full index replication (no sampling)
Brand depth (Vanguard is still the largest ETF issuer in Australia)
BGBL wins on:
Fee (0.08% vs 0.18% — less than half)
Unit price (~$85 vs ~$159 — easier for dollar-cost-averaging)
Performance since launch (marginally ahead)
Betashares Direct platform (zero brokerage on Betashares products)
Both are excellent funds. The differences are at the margin. If you're starting fresh and fee is your priority, buy BGBL. If you value the longest live track record and the deepest liquidity, buy VGS. Either way, you're buying the same ~1,300 global companies at a fraction of the cost of any managed fund.
Want to run the numbers side by side? Compare VGS vs BGBL live on our compare tool.
Alternate Match-Ups to Consider
VGS vs BGBL is the most popular comparison, but it isn't the only one that matters. Here are five other head-to-heads worth looking at depending on what you actually want.
1. VGS vs IVV — global diversification vs US-only
If you're prepared to drop ex-US exposure entirely (and most of what VGS owns IS the US anyway — 72.6%), IVV charges just 0.04% MER and tracks the S&P 500.
VGS | IVV | |
|---|---|---|
MER | 0.18% | 0.04% |
Coverage | 23 developed markets | US only |
Holdings | ~1,500 | 500 |
5Y return | +84.2% | +107.0% |
IVV has crushed VGS over 5 years because the US has crushed everything else. If that lead reverses, the global diversification of VGS protects you. Compare VGS vs IVV — and see our full deep-dive at IVV vs VGS vs VTS.
2. BGBL vs VTS — cheapest global vs cheapest US
Both are at the rock-bottom end of fees. VTS charges 0.03% and holds ~3,500 US-listed companies.
BGBL | VTS | |
|---|---|---|
MER | 0.08% | 0.03% |
Coverage | Global ex-AU | US only (incl. small-caps) |
Holdings | ~1,300 | ~3,500 |
5Y return | n/a (too new) | +91.4% |
Tax | Standard AMIT | W-8BEN required (US tax form) |
VTS is structurally cheaper but requires the W-8BEN paperwork most Aussie investors prefer to avoid. Compare BGBL vs VTS.
3. VGS vs IWLD — same exposure, ESG screen
IWLD tracks the MSCI World ex-Australia ESG Leaders index — same broad universe as VGS, but screens out companies with weak sustainability credentials versus their sector peers.
VGS | IWLD | |
|---|---|---|
MER | 0.18% | 0.09% |
AUM (May 2026) | $16.4B | $1.49B |
ESG screen | None | Yes |
5Y return | +84.2% | +88.1% |
IWLD has half the fee of VGS AND outperformed over 5 years AND screens out laggards. A genuine alternative for anyone who wants the same exposure with an ethical filter. Compare VGS vs IWLD.
4. BGBL vs GGBL — straight vs geared
If you have a long horizon and the stomach for volatility, GGBL is Betashares' 30–40% geared version of BGBL.
BGBL | GGBL | |
|---|---|---|
MER | 0.08% | 0.50% |
Gearing | None | 30–40% |
Volatility | Standard | 1.4–1.7x |
Use case | Core holding | Long-horizon satellite only |
Same underlying exposure, magnified. Compare BGBL vs GGBL. For more on geared ETFs and how they actually work, read How do leveraged geared ETFs work.
5. VGS vs MGOC — passive vs active global
If you've ever wondered whether an active manager can actually beat VGS, MGOC (Magellan Global Open Class) is the most-watched test case in Australia.
VGS | MGOC | |
|---|---|---|
MER | 0.18% | 1.35% |
Style | Passive index | Active concentrated |
5Y return p.a. | +13.6% | +7.2% |
10Y return p.a. | +13.3% | +9.9% |
MGOC has underperformed VGS by ~6% p.a. over 5 years and ~3% p.a. over 10 years — net of its 1.35% fee. The classic illustration of why fees matter and why active beats passive less often than the brochures suggest. Compare VGS vs MGOC — or read the full data in Active vs Passive ETFs.
Related Reading on ReviewETF
Sources
CBOE Australia Monthly Funds Report (May 2026), Betashares (May 2026), Vanguard Australia (May 2026), BlackRock Australia (May 2026), InvestSmart, ReviewETF.com.au.
No fund manager wrote this article. No issuer is paying for placement. This is independent analysis based on publicly available data as at 31 May 2026.
This article is general information only and does not constitute financial advice. Consider your own circumstances and seek professional advice before making investment decisions.
