Every score. Fully explained. No exceptions.

One score. Four pillars. Fixed weights.

Every ETF receives a composite score from 0 to 100. That score is built from exactly four measurable factors, each scored independently on a 0–100 scale, then combined using the weights shown here.

Fees receive the highest weight because they are the most reliable predictor of long-term outcomes. They are certain, compounding, and entirely within an investor's control. Size and liquidity protect against operational and trading risks. Yield receives the lowest weight because high yield alone does not indicate superior total return.

Fees are the single most impactful variable in long-term ETF outcomes. A 1% annual fee compounds to a 26% return drag over 30 years. We weight fees most heavily because, unlike returns, they are certain and predictable.

Larger funds are less likely to close (forced redemptions are a real cost for investors), benefit from better institutional support, and tend to have tighter bid-ask spreads. We use a logarithmic scale because the marginal benefit of additional AUM diminishes at scale.

Higher trading volume means tighter bid-ask spreads and easier entry and exit without moving the market. We use average daily share volume from ASX market data. Poor liquidity directly increases your transaction costs in a way MER does not capture.

Yield expectations differ dramatically by asset class: cash ETFs should yield more than growth ETFs. Scoring yield on an absolute scale would penalise every international equity ETF. Instead, we score yield proportionally within each of our 26 categories: a fund's yield is divided by the highest yield in its category to give a score from 0–100. The highest-yielding fund in a category scores 100; truly zero-yield funds score 0. Funds with a positive yield always score above 0, even if they are the lowest yielder in their category.