βš”οΈ Head to head

GIFL vs GLIN: Which ETF Is Better?

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

GIFL comes out ahead on 4 of 7 measures. Which matters most depends on you.

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

The short answer

πŸ’ΈLower feeGLIN wins
GIFL
0.98%
GLIN
0.15%

Worth about $54,336 on $100,000 over 20 years.

🏦Bigger fundGIFL wins
GIFL
$3.0bn
GLIN
$1.9bn

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

πŸ“ˆ1-year returnGIFL wins
GIFL
+6.1%
GLIN
+5.7%
πŸ“Š3-year returnToo close to call
GIFL
–
GLIN
+12.3% a yr
βš–οΈCheaper to tradeGLIN wins
GIFL
0.20%
GLIN
0.06%

A tighter gap between the buy and sell price.

GIFL vs GLIN side by side

GIFL leads on 4, GLIN on 3GIFLLazard Global Listed Infrastructure Active ETFGLINiShares Core FTSE Global Infrastructure (AUD Hedged) ETF
The basics
Index trackedSee the PDSSee the PDS
Fund managerLazardiShares
Asset classProperty & infrastructureProperty & infrastructure
ListedJun 2024May 2023
Cost and size
MERyearly fee, lower is better0.98%0.15%βœ“
AUMfund size$3.0bnβœ“$1.9bn
Net flows (Sep)new money in, last month$75m$182mβœ“
Bid/ask spreadtrading cost, lower is better0.20%0.06%βœ“
Total returns
1 monthβˆ’4.7%βœ“βˆ’5.5%
1 year+6.1%βœ“+5.7%
3 years p.a.–+12.3%
5 years p.a.––
$10,000 invested
1 year ago$10,612βœ“$10,570
5 years ago––

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

πŸ“ˆ Growth

What $10,000 invested is worth now

Only GLIN has a 3 years record: $10,000 then is worth $14,152 today.

GIFLGLIN$10,000 invested
$0k$4k$8k$12k$16k$10.6k$10.6k1 year agoGIFL +$42too new$14.2k3 years ago

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

GLIN's lower fee leaves about $54,336 more in your pocket over 20 years.

GIFL charges 0.98% a yearGLIN charges 0.15% a year
🧾 Fees paid on $100,000Saving
5 years
GIFL
βˆ’$6,306
GLIN
βˆ’$980
You keep$5,326more with GLIN
10 years
GIFL
βˆ’$17,292
GLIN
βˆ’$2,740
You keep$14,552more with GLIN
20 years
GIFL
βˆ’$65,042
GLIN
βˆ’$10,706
You keep$54,336more with GLIN

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 GIFL vs GLIN 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, GIFL or GLIN?

It depends on what you need. On our numbers GIFL wins on 4 measures and GLIN on 3. GLIN is cheaper, with a management fee of 0.15% vs 0.98%. On $100,000 over 20 years that difference is worth about $54,336. GIFL is the larger fund at $3.0bn vs $1.9bn. GIFL has the better 1-year return: +6.1% vs +5.7%.

Which is cheaper, GIFL or GLIN?

GIFL charges 0.98% a year and GLIN charges 0.15% a year.

Can I hold both GIFL and GLIN?

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

More comparisons

GIFL vs IFRAGIFL vs CUIVGIFL vs VBLDGIFL vs DJREGIFL vs QGRUGIFL vs SLFGIFL vs MCSIIFRA vs GLINGLIN vs GLPRGLIN vs REITGLIN vs CIIHGLIN vs VBLDGLIN vs MCSIGLIN vs MICH

Add more ETFs to this comparison β†’

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