βš”οΈ Head to head

CIIH vs CUIV: Which ETF Is Better?

A side-by-side comparison of fees, size, returns and holdings, using data to 30 September 2026.

CIIH comes out ahead on 4 of 6 measures. Which matters most depends on you.

The big difference is currency. CIIH is currency hedged, so its returns ignore moves in the Australian dollar. CUIV is unhedged: it does better when the dollar falls and worse when it rises.

The short answer

πŸ’ΈLower feeCUIV wins
CIIH
1.02%
CUIV
0.97%

Worth about $3,028 on $100,000 over 20 years.

🏦Bigger fundCIIH wins
CIIH
$1.4bn
CUIV
$678m

Bigger funds usually trade more cheaply and are less likely to close.

πŸ“ˆ1-year returnCIIH wins
CIIH
+10.5%
CUIV
βˆ’0.4%
βš–οΈCheaper to tradeToo close to call
CIIH
0.42%
CUIV
0.40%

CIIH vs CUIV side by side

CIIH leads on 4, CUIV on 2CIIHCB Global Infrastructure Income (Hedged) Active ETFCUIVCB GLBL Infrastructure Value Active ETF
The basics
Index trackedSee the PDSSee the PDS
Fund managerClearBridgeClearBridge
Asset classProperty & infrastructureProperty & infrastructure
ListedApr 2025Apr 2025
Cost and size
MERyearly fee, lower is better1.02%0.97%βœ“
AUMfund size$1.4bnβœ“$678m
Net flows (Sep)new money in, last month$41mβœ“$1.8m
Bid/ask spreadtrading cost, lower is better0.42%0.40%
Total returns
1 monthβˆ’4.4%βˆ’3.5%βœ“
1 year+10.5%βœ“βˆ’0.4%
3 years p.a.––
5 years p.a.––
$10,000 invested
1 year ago$11,053βœ“$9,958
5 years ago––

βœ“ marks the better figure on each measure. Returns include distributions, to 30 September 2026.

CIIH vs CUIV price chart

Both ETFs on one chart as % change. Use the 1D to All buttons to change the period. Price only, so it leaves out distributions Β· TradingView

πŸ“ˆ Growth

What $10,000 invested is worth now

$10,000 put into CIIH 1 year ago is worth $11,053 today, against $9,958 in CUIV. That is $1,095 more in CIIH.

CIIHCUIV$10,000 invested
$0k$4k$8k$12k$16k$11.1k$10.0k1 year agoCIIH +$1,095

Total returns to 30 September 2026, with distributions reinvested, before tax and brokerage. The price chart above leaves out distributions, so it can look worse. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.

πŸ’Έ Cost

What the fees cost you

CUIV's lower fee leaves about $3,028 more in your pocket over 20 years.

CIIH charges 1.02% a yearCUIV charges 0.97% a year
🧾 Fees paid on $100,000Saving
5 years
CIIH
βˆ’$6,559
CUIV
βˆ’$6,243
You keep$316more with CUIV
10 years
CIIH
βˆ’$17,968
CUIV
βˆ’$17,123
You keep$845more with CUIV
20 years
CIIH
βˆ’$67,463
CUIV
βˆ’$64,435
You keep$3,028more with CUIV

Total fees paid on a $100,000 investment, assuming a 7% a year return before fees. Illustration only: it ignores tax, brokerage and differences in returns.

Free PDF report

Get the full CIIH vs CUIV report

  • Every holding of each ETF: the top 50 companies, with sectors and countries
  • Exactly which companies they share, and how much of each
  • Fees in dollars over 10, 20 and 30 years
  • Every metric side by side, including the index each tracks
  • β˜… FREE BONUSIs now a good time to invest? The Market Health-O-Meter
⬇ Get the free report
Joshua Stega
etfadviserExchange traded fund specialist adviser Β· 20 years’ experience
Keep in touch with the marketsWeekly ETF research, the Market Health-O-Meter and our model portfolio.Try it free for 30 days β†’

FAQs

Which is better, CIIH or CUIV?

It depends on what you need. On our numbers CIIH wins on 4 measures and CUIV on 2. CUIV is cheaper, with a management fee of 0.97% vs 1.02%. On $100,000 over 20 years that difference is worth about $3,028. CIIH is the larger fund at $1.4bn vs $678m. CIIH has the better 1-year return: +10.5% vs βˆ’0.4%.

Which is cheaper, CIIH or CUIV?

CIIH charges 1.02% a year and CUIV charges 0.97% a year.

Can I hold both CIIH and CUIV?

You can, but check how much they overlap. CIIH is a property & infrastructure fund and CUIV is a property & infrastructure fund.

More comparisons

CIIH vs CIVHIFRA vs CIIHGLIN vs CIIHCIIH vs MICHCIVH vs CUIVGIFL vs CUIV

Add more ETFs to this comparison β†’

General information only, not a recommendation. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.