HACK vs NDQ ETF Comparison
Betashares Global Cybersecurity ETF vs Betashares Nasdaq 100 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.
Last updated: May 2026
Verdict
HACK provides exposure to global cybersecurity companies via the Nasdaq ISE Cyber Security Index. NDQ provides exposure to the 100 largest non-financial Nasdaq-listed companies, which includes major technology holdings but is not focused specifically on cybersecurity. HACK is a thematic, sector-concentrated ETF; NDQ is a broader technology-weighted index. This is general information only and not financial advice.
Investors weighing thematic cybersecurity exposure against broader Nasdaq-100 index exposure.
HACK and NDQ have approximately 6% estimated holdings overlap (from the top 10 listed holdings of each fund), meaning the two funds hold a higher proportion of different underlying companies by weight.
| ETF | Full name | Annual fee | Cost per $10,000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| HACK | Betashares Global Cybersecurity ETF | 0.67% p.a. | $67/yr |
| NDQ | Betashares Nasdaq 100 ETF | 0.48% p.a. | $48/yr |
General information only, not financial advice. Fee data sourced from fund manager PDS documents, updated quarterly. Always verify current fees directly with the fund provider before making investment decisions.
General information only, not financial advice
ETFLens does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) and does not provide financial product advice. The information and tools on this page are general information only and do not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before investing, read the relevant Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) available from the fund manager. Consider seeking advice from a licensed financial adviser before making any investment decision.
Compare any two ASX ETFs
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers above to see fees, holdings overlap and a plain-English summary of the key differences.
Popular comparisons
General information only · Not financial advice · Data updated quarterly · Always read the relevant PDS and consider consulting a licensed financial adviser.
HACK vs NDQ: frequently asked questions
What is the holdings overlap between HACK and NDQ?
HACK and NDQ have approximately 6% estimated holdings overlap, based on the top 10 listed holdings of each fund. This is considered low overlap, estimated from listed top holdings rather than the full constituent lists. General information only, not financial advice.
Which has the lower fee, HACK or NDQ?
NDQ has the lower management fee. HACK charges 0.67% per year ($67 per year on a $10,000 investment) and NDQ charges 0.48% per year ($48 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $19 per year per $10,000 invested. General information only, not financial advice.
How large are HACK and NDQ?
HACK (Betashares Global Cybersecurity ETF) manages approximately $1.4B and NDQ (Betashares Nasdaq 100 ETF) manages approximately $8.7B. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee. General information only, not financial advice.
Can I hold both HACK and NDQ?
You can hold both, but with approximately 6% 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.
Should I choose HACK or NDQ?
There is no universally right choice — it depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. HACK charges 0.67% and NDQ charges 0.48%, so NDQ has the lower management fee, and they have approximately 6% 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 estimated from listed top holdings, not full constituent lists, 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.