NDQ tracks the Nasdaq-100 Index — the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on the Nasdaq exchange, with approximately 101 holdings. FANG tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index, which holds approximately 10 leading technology and technology-adjacent companies. FANG carries significantly higher concentration risk than NDQ. Neither ETF pays franking credits. General information only — not financial advice.
See live overlap and concentration in our FANG vs NDQ comparison tool.
Key findings (as at Q2 2026)
NDQ and FANG both give Australian investors exposure to the largest US tech and tech-adjacent companies, but they are not interchangeable. NDQ holds the 100 largest non-financial Nasdaq companies, while FANG tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index — a small group of mega-cap tech and tech-adjacent stocks. The fundamental difference is concentration. This guide explains what that means in practice, how the two funds overlap, and which kinds of investors each may suit. General information only, not financial advice.
At a glance
| NDQ | FANG | |
|---|---|---|
| Full name | Betashares Nasdaq 100 ETF | Global X FANG+ ETF |
| Index tracked | Nasdaq-100 | NYSE FANG+ |
| Holdings | 101 | 10 |
| MER | 0.48% p.a. | 0.35% p.a. |
| Fund size (Q2 2026) | $8.7B | $1.7B |
| Trailing yield | approximately 1% | approximately 0.3% |
| Geography | US (Nasdaq-listed) | Mostly US, equally weighted |
| Franking credits | No | No |
What is NDQ?
NDQ is the Betashares Nasdaq 100 ETF. It tracks the Nasdaq-100 Index, holding the 100 largest non-financial companies on the Nasdaq exchange. The fund is heavily weighted to technology, with consumer discretionary and communication services accounting for most of the rest. Holdings are weighted by market capitalisation, so the largest companies have outsized weight — but the long tail of smaller Nasdaq-100 members dilutes that concentration relative to a fund like FANG.
What is FANG?
FANG is the Global X FANG+ ETF (Australian-domiciled, listed on the ASX). It tracks the NYSE FANG+ Index, which holds approximately 10 large-cap US tech and tech-adjacent companies — the original "FANG" names (Meta, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Alphabet) plus other mega-cap technology businesses such as Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla, with occasional non-US adjustments. The index uses approximately equal weighting and rebalances quarterly.
The concentration difference
This is the central distinction. NDQ holds 101 companies. FANG holds approximately 10. Even when NDQ's top 10 carry significant weight, the bottom 90 holdings still contribute meaningfully and provide some buffer when any individual large name underperforms. FANG, by design, has no such buffer — each holding represents a much larger share of the fund. When any individual FANG name moves sharply, the fund moves sharply with it.
Holdings overlap
Overlap is approximately 78% by the ETFLens calculation (which compares the disclosed top holdings of each fund). The FANG names that drive FANG's exposure are also the largest holdings inside NDQ. The investor question is not whether the two funds hold the same companies — they largely do — but how much weight to put on those companies. The ETFLens overlap checker shows the exact figure.
Volatility and drawdown risk
FANG's narrower holding list produces materially larger swings than NDQ. In a year where mega-cap tech leads the broader market, FANG can move further than NDQ in the same direction; in a year where any one of its handful of holdings falters, FANG can move further in the opposite direction. NDQ itself is already a concentrated fund relative to a broad global ETF like VGS. FANG is significantly more concentrated again. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns, but historical drawdowns for both funds have been wider than for broad global benchmarks.
Fee comparison
NDQ costs $48/yr per $10,000 and FANG costs $35/yr per $10,000. The MER difference reflects the concentrated, themed nature of FANG's index. On a long-horizon holding the gap compounds — the ETFLens Fee Calculator models the difference at different balances and time horizons.
Tax treatment
Neither fund carries Australian franking credits because both hold US-listed companies. Distributions can include foreign income tax offsets (FITOs) for US withholding tax paid on US dividends. Australian-domiciled ETFs (both NDQ and FANG) handle the US-side withholding via the fund's tax position rather than requiring individual W-8BEN paperwork from each investor. Tax treatment depends on individual circumstances. Speak with a registered tax adviser. General information only.
Performance
NDQ has returned 24.9% over one year, 24.2% p.a. over three years and 16.5% p.a. over five years. FANG has returned 14.8% over one year, 18.4% p.a. over three years and 16.2% p.a. over five years. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. The difference between the two reflects FANG's higher concentration in the mega-cap tech names that drove the post-2020 US tech run.
Who may suit NDQ
NDQ may suit you if you want concentrated exposure to US tech and growth companies but prefer the buffer of holding 100 names rather than a handful. The fund is still concentrated by global-equity standards — see the NDQ review for a fuller walkthrough.
Who may suit FANG
FANG may suit you if you specifically want concentrated, equal-weighted exposure to a small group of mega-cap tech and tech-adjacent businesses, have a high tolerance for short-term volatility, and a long enough horizon to ride out the drawdowns that come with that concentration. A short time horizon is not consistent with FANG's risk profile.
This is general information only and not a recommendation to buy or not buy either fund. Consider seeking advice from a licensed financial adviser who can assess your specific circumstances.
See the full side-by-side breakdown: holdings overlap, sector exposure and fee difference in dollars.
Compare FANG vs NDQ on ETFLens →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 reported from fund manager disclosures, reviewed quarterly. 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.