WXOZ vs WXHG: Which ETF Is Better?
A side-by-side comparison of fees, size, returns and holdings, using data to 30 September 2026.
WXOZ comes out ahead on 6 of 9 measures. Which matters most depends on you.
The short answer
Worth about $2,137 on $100,000 over 20 years.
Bigger funds usually trade more cheaply and are less likely to close.
WXOZ vs WXHG side by side
| WXOZ leads on 6, WXHG on 3 | WXOZState Street SPDR S&P World ex Australia Carbon Aware ETF | WXHGState Street SPDR S&P World ex Australia Carbon Aware (Hedged) ETF |
|---|---|---|
| The basics | ||
| Index tracked | S&P Developed Ex-Australia LargeMidCap Carbon Aware Index | S&P Developed Ex-Australia LargeMidCap Carbon Aware Index, hedged to AUD |
| Fund manager | State Street (SPDR) | State Street (SPDR) |
| Asset class | International shares | International shares |
| Listed | Mar 2013 | Jul 2013 |
| Cost and size | ||
| MERyearly fee, lower is better | 0.07%✓ | 0.10% |
| AUMfund size | $858m✓ | $410m |
| Net flows (Sep)new money in, last month | $49m✓ | $0.0m |
| Bid/ask spreadtrading cost, lower is better | 0.10% | 0.14% |
| Total returns | ||
| 1 month | +1.0%✓ | −1.3% |
| 1 year | +7.6% | +14.7%✓ |
| 3 years p.a. | +16.9% | +18.6%✓ |
| 5 years p.a. | +9.3%✓ | +7.3% |
| $10,000 invested | ||
| 1 year ago | $10,763 | $11,473✓ |
| 5 years ago | $15,565✓ | $14,235 |
✓ marks the better figure on each measure. Returns include distributions, to 30 September 2026.
WXOZ vs WXHG 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 WXOZ 5 years ago is worth $15,565 today, against $14,235 in WXHG. That is $1,330 more in WXOZ.
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
WXOZ's lower fee leaves about $2,137 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.
WXOZ and WXHG overlap
400 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 WXOZ | % of WXHG |
|---|---|---|
| 7.87% | 7.87% | |
| 4.56% | 4.56% | |
| 3.78% | 3.78% | |
| 2.17% | 2.17% | |
| 2.04% | 2.04% | |
| 1.47% | 1.47% | |
| 1.33% | 1.33% | |
| 1.32% | 1.32% | |
| 1.14% | 1.14% | |
| 1.01% | 1.01% | |
| 0.83% | 0.83% | |
| 0.83% | 0.83% |
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 WXOZ vs WXHG 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, WXOZ or WXHG?
It depends on what you need. On our numbers WXOZ wins on 6 measures and WXHG on 3. WXOZ is cheaper, with a management fee of 0.07% vs 0.10%. On $100,000 over 20 years that difference is worth about $2,137. WXOZ is the larger fund at $858m vs $410m. WXHG has the better 1-year return: +14.7% vs +7.6%.
Which is cheaper, WXOZ or WXHG?
WXOZ charges 0.07% a year and WXHG charges 0.10% a year.
Can I hold both WXOZ and WXHG?
You can, but check how much they overlap. WXOZ is a international shares fund and WXHG is a international shares fund.
More comparisons
General information only, not a recommendation. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.