HBMX vs SOXX: Which Is the Better Pick in 2026?

Overview

HBMX and SOXX are both semiconductor-focused equity ETFs, but they differ fundamentally in scope and approach. SOXX is a passive, broad-based tracker of the entire US semiconductor industry via the ICE Semiconductor Index; HBMX is an actively managed, concentrated bet on memory-chip producers and their supply chain—DRAM, NAND, HBM, and the equipment and packaging firms that support them. The practical difference is breadth: SOXX captures logic chips, analog, and the full design-to-fab ecosystem, while HBMX narrows to memory and its infrastructure.

How they differ

The biggest difference is strategy: SOXX replicates a 350+ company index across all semiconductor segments, while HBMX uses active stock-picking to build a concentrated portfolio within the memory subsector only. That concentration reshapes the risk and return profile—HBMX is betting that memory and HBM-related equipment will outpace the broader chip industry.

Second, the cost and income profiles diverge sharply. HBMX charges 0.95% in expenses versus SOXX's 0.35%, and HBMX distributes annually with no stated yield, while SOXX pays a 0.21% distribution rate quarterly. SOXX's $45.5B in AUM dwarfs HBMX's $30.2M, meaning SOXX benefits from tighter trading spreads and more predictable rebalancing.

Third, HBMX's three-month history (inception 06/02/2026) makes it a brand-new experiment, while SOXX has 23+ years of track record. That newness also means HBMX's portfolio positioning, conviction holdings, and manager discipline are untested through a full market cycle.

Who each is best for

HBMX: Fits investors who believe the memory-chip and HBM-infrastructure sub-industry will significantly outperform the broader semiconductor sector, have a multi-year horizon, and are comfortable with concentrated exposure and active-management fees to capture that conviction.

SOXX: Fits investors seeking diversified semiconductor exposure across logic, analog, memory, and equipment—preferring the low-cost, passive-replication route and willing to accept the broader sector beta as their return driver.

Key risks to know

• Concentration and subsector timing: HBMX's active tilt toward memory and HBM suppliers means poor execution of that thesis—or a shift in industry capital allocation away from memory—could produce significant underperformance versus the broader chip index.

• Illiquidity and AUM risk: At $30.2M in assets, HBMX has minimal trading liquidity and faces real risk of closure or forced liquidation if assets shrink further; SOXX's $45.5B cushions against this risk.

• Memory-chip cyclicality: Memory (DRAM and NAND) is a commodity business with multi-year boom-bust cycles; HBMX's concentration amplifies downside when the cycle turns, whereas SOXX's diversification into logic and analog dampens that volatility.

• Manager and benchmark risk: HBMX's active approach depends on Tuttle Capital's stock-selection skill and thematic conviction; SOXX's passive structure eliminates manager selection risk but caps upside to index-level performance.

• Valuation and growth assumptions: HBMX's focus on AI-adjacent memory infrastructure (HBM) embeds an assumption that this segment grows faster than the overall chip industry; failure to realize that growth differential could pressure returns independent of broader market conditions.

Bottom line

If you're convinced the memory and high-bandwidth-memory supply chain will drive semiconductor outperformance over the next several years and accept concentrated, active-management risk, HBMX offers a narrowly focused vehicle. If you want broad semiconductor exposure with lower fees, proven liquidity, and a 20+ year track record, SOXX aligns with that profile. These may overlap in holdings; the tradeoff comes down to conviction in memory's outperformance versus comfort with index-level exposure. Past performance does not predict future results.