QHAL vs QLTY: Which ETF Is Better?
A side-by-side comparison of fees, size, returns and holdings, using data to 30 September 2026.
QHAL comes out ahead on 8 of 10 measures. Which matters most depends on you.
The short answer
Worth about $5,399 on $100,000 over 20 years.
Bigger funds usually trade more cheaply and are less likely to close.
A tighter gap between the buy and sell price.
QHAL vs QLTY side by side
| QHAL leads on 8, QLTY on 2 | QHALVanEck MSCI International Quality (AUD Hedged) ETF | QLTYBetashares Global Quality Leaders ETF |
|---|---|---|
| The basics | ||
| Index tracked | MSCI World ex Australia Quality Index, hedged to AUD | iSTOXX MUTB Global ex-Australia Quality Leaders Index |
| Fund manager | VanEck | Betashares |
| Asset class | International shares | International shares |
| Listed | Mar 2019 | Nov 2018 |
| Cost and size | ||
| MERyearly fee, lower is better | 0.43% | 0.35%✓ |
| AUMfund size | $2.7bn✓ | $1.1bn |
| Net flows (Sep)new money in, last month | $54m✓ | $9.4m |
| Bid/ask spreadtrading cost, lower is better | 0.04%✓ | 0.08% |
| Total returns | ||
| 1 month | +0.6% | +1.9%✓ |
| 1 year | +16.5%✓ | +8.9% |
| 3 years p.a. | +17.8%✓ | +15.3% |
| 5 years p.a. | +9.7%✓ | +9.2% |
| $10,000 invested | ||
| 1 year ago | $11,650✓ | $10,890 |
| 5 years ago | $15,863✓ | $15,552 |
✓ marks the better figure on each measure. Returns include distributions, to 30 September 2026.
QHAL vs QLTY 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 · TradingView
What $10,000 invested is worth now
$10,000 put into QHAL 5 years ago is worth $15,863 today, against $15,552 in QLTY. That is $311 more in QHAL.
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.
What the fees cost you
QLTY's lower fee leaves about $5,399 more in your pocket over 20 years.
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.
QHAL and QLTY overlap
104 companies appear in both funds. Overlap is the share of the portfolio that is the same in both, counting the smaller weight of each shared company.
| Biggest shared holdings | % of QHAL | % of QLTY |
|---|---|---|
| 5.94% | 5.34% | |
| 4.59% | 4.81% | |
| 3.43% | 4.24% | |
| 2.97% | 5.67% | |
| 2.46% | 4.63% | |
| 2.05% | 5.17% | |
| 1.43% | 4.09% | |
| 1.31% | 2.73% | |
| 1.19% | 3.41% | |
| 1.18% | 3.42% | |
| 1.15% | 2.82% | |
| 1.11% | 3.86% |
Add more ETFs and see the overlap in Compare ETFs →
Best-endeavours estimate. Built from each issuer's published holdings, which may be weeks or months old, may cover only part of a fund (some publish only their top 10) and are matched by company name. Figures may be incomplete or inaccurate. Check the issuer's website and PDS before relying on them. General information only.
Get the full QHAL vs QLTY 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
- ★ FREE BONUSIs now a good time to invest? The Market Health-O-Meter
FAQs
Which is better, QHAL or QLTY?
It depends on what you need. On our numbers QHAL wins on 8 measures and QLTY on 2. QLTY is cheaper, with a management fee of 0.35% vs 0.43%. On $100,000 over 20 years that difference is worth about $5,399. QHAL is the larger fund at $2.7bn vs $1.1bn. QHAL has the better 1-year return: +16.5% vs +8.9%.
Which is cheaper, QHAL or QLTY?
QHAL charges 0.43% a year and QLTY charges 0.35% a year.
Can I hold both QHAL and QLTY?
You can, but check how much they overlap. QHAL is a international shares fund and QLTY is a international shares fund.
More comparisons
General information only, not a recommendation. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.