Generated August 15, 2026.
Figures quoted in this analysis are from its generation date and may lag the live snapshot table above, which always shows the latest data.
Overview
HBMX and KMEM are both thematic ETFs launched in mid-2026 that track the memory semiconductor ecosystem. HBMX is actively managed and targets the full supply chain—DRAM, NAND, HBM producers plus equipment and advanced packaging companies—while KMEM takes a simpler approach, focusing directly on memory chip manufacturers themselves. Both are nascent funds with similar AUM in the $26–28M range.
How they differ
The biggest difference is strategy: HBMX uses active management to cast a wider net across the memory value chain (chipmakers, equipment suppliers, testing and packaging firms), while KMEM appears to be a passive or rules-based basket limited to memory producers alone. HBMX's broader scope comes at a cost—its 0.95% expense ratio is 30 basis points higher than KMEM's 0.65%. Both funds are tiny and young (inception June 2026), so liquidity and track record are both essentially nonexistent; HBMX's $27.8M AUM and KMEM's $26.8M AUM suggest minimal trading depth.
Who each is best for
HBMX: Fits investors who believe the profits in AI infrastructure flow across the entire semiconductor supply chain—not just chip fabrication—and who trust active management to navigate rapidly shifting competitive dynamics in memory technology.
KMEM: Fits investors seeking straightforward, low-cost exposure to the memory chipmakers themselves and who prefer a transparent, static selection methodology over active decision-making.
Key risks to know
- Strategy concentration. Both funds are narrowly focused on memory semiconductors, a sector whose demand is tethered to AI capex cycles and vulnerable to sudden shifts in data-center purchasing patterns. A pullback in AI infrastructure spending would pressure both holdings simultaneously.
- Tiny fund size and illiquidity. With AUM below $30M each, both ETFs face potential closure or forced liquidation if assets don't grow. Trading spreads and depth are likely to be wide, making entry and exit expensive relative to fund size.
- Active vs. passive fee tradeoff. HBMX's active management adds 30 basis points annually; if the manager underperforms a simple memory-chip basket over time, that fee drag compounds and erodes relative returns.
- Supply chain concentration risk. If HBMX's equipment and packaging suppliers are correlated with chipmaker performance, the fund's broader scope may offer less diversification than it appears.
Bottom line
HBMX bets that semiconductor supply-chain optionality justifies active management and a higher fee; KMEM keeps it simple and cheaper. If you want exposure to the entire memory value chain and believe a manager can add value through selective positioning, HBMX's broader ecosystem approach may appeal. If you prefer minimal fees and direct exposure to memory production capacity, KMEM's lower cost structure and straightforward focus align better. Both are extremely new and illiquid—past performance is not available for either—so position sizing should reflect the risk of early-stage fund closure.
AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.
