FHNG vs NDQ: FANG+ Concentration or Nasdaq-100 Breadth

FHNG and NDQ both concentrate on large US technology companies but take very different routes. FHNG holds just 10 mega-cap names in roughly equal weights and hedges the currency, at approximately 0.38% p.a.. NDQ holds the 103 largest non-financial Nasdaq companies, market-cap weighted and unhedged, at approximately 0.48% p.a.. Their holdings overlap is approximately 48%.

FHNG is the Global X FANG+ (Currency Hedged) ETF, tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index: ten of the largest US technology and consumer-technology companies, rebalanced to roughly equal weights each quarter. NDQ is the Betashares Nasdaq 100 ETF, tracking the Nasdaq-100: approximately 103 of the largest non-financial companies on the Nasdaq exchange, weighted by market capitalisation. Every FANG+ constituent also sits inside the Nasdaq-100, which is why the estimated overlap is approximately 48%.

See live data, holdings overlap and the fee difference in our FHNG vs NDQ comparison tool.

FHNG and NDQ attract the same kind of search: investors who want more US technology exposure than a broad global fund provides and are weighing how concentrated to go. The two funds answer that question very differently, one holds ten stocks, the other around a hundred, and the currency treatment differs too. Here is how they actually compare.

The short version

• FHNG holds 10 stocks. NDQ holds approximately 103. That is the whole story in one line: maximum concentration versus diversified technology exposure.
• FHNG charges 0.38% per year, NDQ charges 0.48%. Unusually, the more concentrated fund is the cheaper one.
• Estimated holdings overlap is approximately 48%. Every FANG+ stock is in NDQ, but NDQ spreads the other half of its weight across roughly 90 more companies.
• FHNG is currency hedged; NDQ is not. A falling Australian dollar helps NDQ's AUD returns and does not help FHNG's, and vice versa.
• NDQ is one of the largest ETFs on the ASX ($8.7 billion); FHNG is a small fund ($133.38 million) listed in 2024.
• FHNG's equal-weight, ten-stock structure means a bad result at a single company moves approximately a tenth of the fund.

At a glance

What the overlap actually looks like

The estimated overlap between FHNG and NDQ is approximately 48%, and the shape of that number matters more than the number itself. All ten FANG+ constituents are also Nasdaq-100 members, so every dollar in FHNG is invested in companies NDQ also holds. The overlap is not higher because the comparison runs both ways: those same ten companies account for only around half of NDQ's total weight. The other half of NDQ is spread across roughly 90 further companies, from semiconductor and software names through to travel, retail and healthcare technology, that FHNG does not touch.

Put another way: FHNG is a leveraged bet on the exact stocks that already dominate NDQ's top holdings, without the diversifying tail. Holding both funds mostly doubles up the same ten names. You can see the shared holdings line by line in the free overlap checker.

Ten stocks, equal weights: what concentration means here

The NYSE FANG+ Index holds ten stocks in roughly equal weights, rebalanced quarterly. Recent disclosures have included names such as Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Netflix, NVIDIA and Tesla, with the remaining slots rotating between other large technology companies over time as the index provider updates the list. Equal weighting means each name is approximately 10% of the fund regardless of company size, so a single-company event, an earnings miss, a regulatory action, a product failure, moves approximately a tenth of the portfolio. In a market-cap weighted fund like NDQ, most single names are a much smaller share.

That cuts both ways. Concentration amplifies whatever those ten companies do, in both directions. It is the entire design of the product, not a side effect. NDQ's approximately 103 holdings dampen single-stock events but still lean heavily toward the same mega-cap technology leaders that dominate the index's largest positions.

The fee comparison runs backwards

Concentrated thematic funds usually cost more than broad ones. Here the reverse is true: FHNG charges 0.38% p.a. against NDQ's 0.48% p.a.. On $10,000, that is:

The gap is 0.10% per year in FHNG's favour. Fees are only one input, though: the two funds hold meaningfully different portfolios, so this is not a like-for-like fee decision the way VGS vs BGBL is. Model either fee over decades in the ETFLens Fee Analyser.

Hedged vs unhedged: the quiet difference

FHNG hedges its US dollar exposure back to Australian dollars; NDQ does not. In plain terms: NDQ's AUD value moves with two things, the share prices of its holdings and the AUD/USD exchange rate. When the Australian dollar falls, unhedged US funds get a tailwind in AUD terms; when it rises, a headwind. FHNG removes most of that currency effect, so its returns track the FANG+ stocks themselves, and its distributions can be lumpy because hedging contracts realise gains and losses along the way. FHNG's distribution amounts have historically been irregular for exactly that reason, driven by hedging and realised gains rather than steady dividend income from the underlying companies, which pay little.

If you want the concentrated FANG+ exposure without the hedge, Global X also lists FANG, the unhedged version of the same index. And if you want the Nasdaq-100 with a hedge, Betashares lists HNDQ. The hedging decision is separate from the concentration decision, and the four funds cover all four combinations.

Fund size and track record

NDQ has been listed since 2015 and is one of the most widely held ETFs on the ASX at $8.7 billion, with a decade of live history through several very different markets. FHNG listed in 2024 and holds $133.38 million. A smaller, newer fund is not a flaw in itself, the index it tracks is rules-based, but bid-ask spreads tend to be wider on smaller funds and the fund's own live track record is short.

Which one suits which type of investor

FHNG may suit investors who deliberately want maximum concentration in a handful of US technology mega-caps, understand that a single stock is approximately a tenth of the fund, and prefer their US dollar exposure hedged back to AUD.

NDQ may suit investors who want strong technology exposure with the diversification of approximately 103 companies, accept unhedged currency movement in their returns, and value a large, long-running fund.

These are factual descriptions of how each product is built, not recommendations. Concentrated technology exposure of either kind sits at the aggressive end of the risk spectrum, and many investors hold funds like these only as a satellite around a broader core.

The bottom line

FHNG and NDQ are not substitutes, despite the approximately 48% overlap. FHNG is a ten-stock, equal-weight, currency-hedged bet on the FANG+ names. NDQ is a hundred-stock, cap-weighted, unhedged slice of the Nasdaq. The FANG+ names sit inside both, but the concentration, the currency treatment and the fund scale all differ. The factual comparison: FHNG is cheaper (0.38% vs 0.48%), far more concentrated (10 vs approximately 103 holdings), hedged where NDQ is not, and much smaller and newer.

General information only. Not financial advice. This article does not consider your personal financial situation, objectives or needs. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. MER and fund size data sourced from each issuer's published disclosure documents, reviewed quarterly. Index constituents change over time; always check the current PDS for the most recent fee and holdings information before investing. ETFLens does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence. Always read the relevant PDS and consider seeking advice from a licensed financial adviser (AFS licence holder) before making any investment decisions.