iShares vs VanEck
Both providers track indices, so neither "performs" better than the other — what separates them is cost, range and which markets they actually cover. iShares has 64 products in this catalog and VanEck has 11, overlapping in 6 categories. iShares offers the cheapest fund in 4 of those 6 categories.
iShares
- Products
- 64
- Lowest TER
- 0.07%
- Average TER
- 0.40%
- Categories
- 13
VanEck
- Products
- 11
- Lowest TER
- 0.25%
- Average TER
- 0.48%
- Categories
- 6
Which one is cheaper, and where
iShares offers the cheapest fund in 4 of the 6 categories both cover.
The cheapest fund from each, category by category
Each provider’s lowest-fee product within every shared category, head to head. The index each one tracks is shown too, because two funds in the same category do not always track the same thing.
| Category | iShares | VanEck | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gold | iShares Physical Gold ETCPhysical gold (spot price)0.12% | VanEck Gold MinersNYSE Arca Gold Miners0.53% | €41/year per €10,000 |
| Technology | iShares Nasdaq 100Nasdaq-1000.33% | VanEck Video Gaming and eSportsMVIS Global Video Gaming and eSports0.55% | €22/year per €10,000 |
| Real estate | iShares STOXX Europe 600 Real EstateSTOXX Europe 600 Real Estate0.46% | VanEck Global Real EstateGlobal Property Research General0.25% | €21/year per €10,000 |
| Sustainable | iShares MSCI World SRIMSCI World SRI Select Reduced Fossil Fuel0.20% | VanEck Sustainable World Equal WeightMarketGrader Sustainable World Equal Weight0.30% | €10/year per €10,000 |
| Dividends | iShares MSCI Europe Quality Dividend Advanced (Dist)MSCI Europe High Dividend Yield Advanced Select0.28% | VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend LeadersMorningstar DM Large Cap Dividend Leaders0.38% | €10/year per €10,000 |
| Thematic | iShares Automation & RoboticsiSTOXX FactSet Automation & Robotics0.40% | VanEck SemiconductorMVIS US Listed Semiconductor 10% Capped0.35% | €5/year per €10,000 |
What each one covers
Only at iShares
Only at VanEck
—
Structural differences
iShares
- Accumulating
- 41%
- Physical replication
- 100%
- Are ETFs
- 97%
- Domicile
- Ireland, Germany
VanEck
- Accumulating
- 91%
- Physical replication
- 100%
- Are ETFs
- 100%
- Domicile
- Ireland, Netherlands
Other provider comparisons
Frequently asked questions
Is iShares or VanEck cheaper?+
iShares offers the cheapest fund in 4 of the 6 categories both cover, against 2 for VanEck. But "cheaper overall" is the wrong question: what matters is which is cheaper in the category you are actually buying.
Where is the difference between iShares and VanEck biggest?+
In gold: iShares Physical Gold ETC charges 0.12% against 0.53% for VanEck Gold Miners. On €10,000 invested that is a €41.00 difference every year, in favour of iShares.
Which one has the wider range?+
iShares, with 64 products against 11. Coverage is not identical either: iShares covers global equities, the US market, emerging markets, European equities, the Japanese market, fixed income, small-cap companies where VanEck does not.
Are there structural differences beyond fees?+
Yes. iShares's products in this catalog are 41% accumulating and 100% physically replicated, domiciled in Ireland, Germany. VanEck's are 91% accumulating and 100% physical, domiciled in Ireland, Netherlands. For a Spanish investor the accumulating/distributing split matters for tax, and domicile matters for dividend withholding.
Does this comparison look at past performance?+
No, deliberately. Two funds tracking the same index deliver almost identical returns before fees, so comparing their past returns tells you about the index, not about the provider. The fee is the part the provider actually controls, and the only one you know for certain the day you invest.
Cost and coverage comparison computed over this site’s catalog, which is a sample and not each provider’s full product range. Returns are not compared: two funds tracking the same index perform almost identically before fees, so past performance tells you about the index, not the provider. Educational content, not a recommendation.