Betashares Global Cybersecurity ETF vs VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat (AUD Hedged) ETF
General information only, not financial advice.
Overlap is estimated from the funds' listed top holdings, not their full constituent lists. Where there are no shared listed holdings it is shown as not reliably estimable.
Betashares Global Cybersecurity ETF
BetaShares
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat (AUD Hedged) ETF
VanEck
Comparison scores reflect how each ETF compares to the other on these specific dimensions only. They are not absolute ratings or recommendations. General information only, not financial advice.
HACK and MHOT are both Thematic ETFs: HACK tracks the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index and MHOT tracks the . MHOT has the lower management fee (0.52% vs 0.67% p.a.). Holdings overlap is approximately 12% estimated (top 48 holdings). General information only, not financial advice.
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
HACK charges 0.67% p.a. and MHOT charges 0.52% p.a.; the lower fee leads on cost.
HACK manages $1.4B and MHOT manages $27.12M; the larger fund leads on scale, which can support tighter spreads.
HACK holds 48 positions and MHOT holds 57; the fund with broader holdings leads on diversification.
HACK distributes approximately 3.4% (Annually) and MHOT approximately 8.14% (Quarterly); the higher distribution yield leads on income.
Over the compared period HACK returned 10.4% and MHOT returned 16.2%. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Green highlights the factually lower fee or higher scale/income figure. Performance is never highlighted. Data from issuer disclosures, reviewed quarterly.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. Past distributions are not a reliable indicator of future distributions. General information only.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Top shared holdings ranked by overlap contribution, the smaller of each company's weight in the two funds. Basis: top 48 holdings. General information only.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures. General information only.
HACK top holdings
MHOT top holdings
HACK sectors
MHOT sectors
HACK geography
MHOT geography
HACK scores 5.1/10 and MHOT scores 5.7/10 on this comparison. MHOT has the higher overall comparison score.
HACK may suit investors who: investors who prefer larger, more established funds.
MHOT may suit investors who: investors seeking income and dividend distributions.
HACK and MHOT have approximately 12% estimated holdings overlap (top 48 holdings). This is considered low overlap, estimated from listed top holdings rather than the full constituent lists. General information only, not financial advice.
MHOT has the lower management fee. HACK charges 0.67% per year ($67 per year on a $10,000 investment) and MHOT charges 0.52% per year ($52 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $15 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
HACK (Betashares Global Cybersecurity ETF) manages approximately $1.4B and MHOT (VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat (AUD Hedged) ETF) manages approximately $27.12M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
You can hold both, but with approximately 12% estimated holdings overlap the two funds hold mostly different companies, so they can be more complementary. Whether that suits you depends on your own objectives. General information only, not financial advice.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. HACK charges 0.67% and MHOT charges 0.52%, so MHOT has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 12% estimated holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors above and consider each fund's Product Disclosure Statement and Target Market Determination. General information only, not financial advice.
General information only.This comparison and the ETFLens tools on this page provide general information about two exchange-traded funds and do not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. It is not personal financial product or investment advice. ETFLens does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). Holdings overlap is calculated from each fund's published holdings (full lists where the issuer publishes one, listed top holdings otherwise), and fee data is sourced from fund manager PDS documents and updated quarterly. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. Consider each fund's Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) and Target Market Determination (TMD), and seek advice from a registered tax agent or licensed financial adviser, before making investment decisions.
Check your portfolio overlap
See how these ETFs interact with your other holdings.
Open overlap checker →Build your portfolio
ProModel a portfolio with these ETFs and see projected fees and income.
Build a portfolio →View full ETF profiles
Holdings, fees, sectors and distributions for each fund.
HACK full profile →MHOT full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →