RWX vs. HAUZ: Assessing Cost Efficiency and Global Diversification in International Real Estate ETFs

The global real estate market remains a compelling asset class for investors seeking diversification and income, yet the choice between the SPDR Dow Jones International Real Estate ETF (RWX) and the Xtrackers International Real Estate ETF (HAUZ) demands a nuanced analysis of cost, performance, and geographic exposure. As 2025 draws to a close, the trade-offs between these two funds highlight divergent strategies for accessing international real estate, with implications for both risk management and long-term returns.

Cost Efficiency: A Stark Divide

The most immediate distinction between RWX and HAUZ lies in their expense ratios. RWX charges 0.59%, a figure that, while typical for real estate-focused ETFs, pales against HAUZ's 0.10% fee. This 490-basis-point difference may seem minor in isolation but compounds significantly over time. For instance, an investor allocating $100,000 to HAUZ would retain approximately $14,800 more in value after 20 years compared to RWX, assuming identical returns and no reinvestment of dividends according to analysis. Such cost savings are particularly critical in an era where passive strategies dominate, and investors increasingly prioritize fee efficiency to maximize net returns.

Performance: Short-Term Gains vs. Long-Term Resilience

Performance metrics reveal a more complex picture. As of 2026, RWX outperformed HAUZ in one-year returns, surging 26.9% against HAUZ's 22.7%. This edge may reflect RWX's concentration in high-growth markets or its benchmark's weighting toward larger-cap assets. However, HAUZ's long-term trajectory is more compelling: since 2013, it has delivered annualized total returns of 3.3%, outpacing RWX's 1.4%. This suggests that HAUZ's broader diversification and lower fees may enhance its resilience during market cycles, particularly in volatile sectors like real estate, where liquidity can fluctuate sharply.

Dividend yields further differentiate the two. HAUZ offers a 3.91% yield, compared to RWX's 3.36% according to data. While RWX's yield is attractive for income-focused investors, HAUZ's combination of yield and lower fees creates a more sustainable income stream over time, especially when reinvested.

Geographic Diversification: Breadth vs. Focus

Geographic allocation underscores the strategic divergence between the funds. RWX, which tracks the Dow Jones Global ex-U.S. Select Real Estate Securities Index, is heavily weighted toward Japan (30%) and the United Kingdom (14%). This concentration can amplify returns in strong regional markets but exposes investors to localized risks, such as regulatory shifts or economic downturns in Japan's real estate sector.

HAUZ, by contrast, adopts a more balanced approach. It allocates 24% to Japanese REITs, 13% to Australian real estate, and spreads exposure across European markets, including holdings in Goodman Group and Mitsui Fudosan according to ETF data. With 408 positions versus RWX's 120, HAUZ's broader portfolio reduces reliance on any single market and captures growth in emerging economies like Australia, where infrastructure investments are gaining momentum according to market analysis. This diversification also mitigates currency risk, as HAUZ's exposure to multiple regions smooths out fluctuations tied to individual economies.

Strategic Implications for Investors

The choice between RWX and HAUZ ultimately hinges on an investor's priorities. RWX's higher yield and recent performance make it a viable option for those prioritizing short-term gains and willing to accept higher fees and geographic concentration. However, for investors seeking cost efficiency and long-term stability, HAUZ's lower expense ratio, broader diversification, and resilient long-term returns present a more compelling case.

Consider an investor with a 10-year horizon: HAUZ's 0.10% fee and 3.3% annualized returns would generate a total return of approximately 38%, compared to RWX's 29% according to projections. This 9% gap, though modest annually, compounds meaningfully over time. Similarly, HAUZ's geographic spread offers a buffer against regional downturns, a critical advantage in an era of fragmented global growth.

Conclusion

In the RWX vs. HAUZ debate, HAUZ emerges as the superior choice for investors prioritizing cost efficiency and global diversification. Its lower fees, broader portfolio, and long-term performance align with the principles of passive investing, while its geographic spread reduces vulnerability to regional shocks. RWX, meanwhile, retains appeal for those seeking higher immediate yields and are comfortable with a more concentrated, active approach. As international real estate markets evolve, the strategic advantages of HAUZ's model are likely to become even more pronounced.