Betashares Global Cybersecurity ETF vs Magellan Infra Fund (Currency Hedged) - Active ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap.
Scored across Cost, Fund size, Holdings breadth and Income. Past performance is excluded.
See full breakdown ↓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
Magellan Infra Fund (Currency Hedged) - Active ETF
Magellan
Comparison scores reflect how each ETF compares to the other on these specific dimensions only. They are not absolute ratings or recommendations.
HACK and MICH are both Thematic ETFs: HACK tracks the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index and MICH tracks the . HACK has the lower management fee (0.67% vs 1.05% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
Key differences at a glance
There is no single "better" fund here - which suits you depends on your goals. The clearest differences between HACK and MICH:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
HACK has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
HACK is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
HACK spreads exposure across more holdings (HACK 48, MICH 0); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
HACK distributes approximately 3.4% and MICH approximately 3.37% - a similar level. A higher distribution yield may suit an income focus; a lower one may suit a growth or tax-efficiency focus. Yields are estimates and are not guaranteed; 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.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures.
HACK top holdings
MICH top holdings
Holdings not published for this fund type.
Sector weights for MICHare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
HACK sectors
MICH sectors
Geographic weights for MICHare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
HACK geography
MICH geography
There is no single right choice between HACK and MICH - it depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. The key differences between the two funds are summarised near the top of this page, with the full side-by-side data below.
HACK and MICH do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
HACK has the lower management fee. HACK charges 0.67% per year ($67 per year on a $10,000 investment) and MICH charges 1.05% per year ($105 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $38 per year per $10,000 invested.
HACK (Betashares Global Cybersecurity ETF) manages approximately $1.4B and MICH (Magellan Infra Fund (Currency Hedged) - Active ETF) manages approximately $522.36M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
HACK and MICH do not share enough listed top holdings to estimate overlap, so whether holding both duplicates your exposure depends on their full constituent lists.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. HACK charges 0.67% and MICH charges 1.05%, so HACK has the lower management fee. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors above and consider each fund's Product Disclosure Statement and Target Market Determination.
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 →MICH full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →