BUGG vs HACK vs CLDD: Three Top ASX ETFs Riding the Cybersecurity Leaders

Written by Christopher Hall, AdvDipFP | Authorised Representative, AFSL 526688 | Updated July 2026

The Global X Cybersecurity ETF (BUGG), the Betashares Global Cybersecurity ETF (HACK) and the Betashares Cloud Computing ETF (CLDD) were the three best-performing ASX-listed ETFs over the quarter to 17 July 2026, returning +46.24%, +34.27% and +21.75% respectively (Australian Warrant Exchange data). Two of the three are cybersecurity funds from different providers, holding the top two places — a marked change from the semiconductor and Asian-memory funds that had led the board for most of the previous month. On the surface the three funds overlap; underneath, the quarter was driven by one narrow group of stocks — the cybersecurity platform leaders — and how much of each fund sits in those names explains the exact order of the board.

What Each ETF Is Built to Do

All three are technology-tilted, but they are built differently:

• BUGG — global pure-play cybersecurity. Tracks the Indxx Cybersecurity Index: a concentrated basket of roughly 30 companies whose principal business is cybersecurity — endpoint, network, identity and cloud security software, predominantly US-listed. Little sits in the book that is not cyber.

• HACK — global cybersecurity, broad build. Tracks the Nasdaq Consumer Technology Association Cybersecurity Index. It holds the same cyber platform leaders at the top, but its wider book also carries large-cap technology and IT-services names — Cisco, Broadcom, Microsoft, Alphabet, Accenture, IBM and Infosys among them.

• CLDD — global cloud computing. Tracks the Indxx Global Cloud Computing Index: leading software-as-a-service, cloud-infrastructure and platform companies (Datadog, Snowflake, ServiceNow, Salesforce, Workday). It touches cybersecurity only through cloud-security and edge names.

Side-by-Side Comparison

	BUGG	HACK	CLDD
Provider	Global X	Betashares	Betashares
Index tracked	Indxx Cybersecurity	Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity	Indxx Global Cloud Computing
What it holds	~30 pure-play cyber stocks	~42 cyber + large-cap IT names	~38 cloud & SaaS software names
Structure	Physical index ETF	Physical index ETF	Physical index ETF
Management fee & costs (p.a.)	0.47%	0.67%	0.67%
Fund size	A$34.2M	A$1.56B	A$41.4M
Currency	Unhedged	Unhedged	Unhedged
Inception (ASX)	Sep 2023	Aug 2016	Feb 2021
Quarterly total return	+46.24%	+34.27%	+21.75%

Quarterly total returns sourced from the Australian Warrant Exchange (AXW), an ASX market, to 17 July 2026. Provider data (index, holdings, fees, fund size) from Global X and Betashares as at 16 July 2026. Fees are management fees and costs per annum as published by the provider, and do not, on their own, indicate suitability.

Where the Three Funds Overlap

Comparing each fund's top-20 holdings, only two names sit in all three: Zscaler and Akamai — both cloud-security names that legitimately belong in a cybersecurity index and a cloud index at once.

Held by all three	BUGG	HACK	CLDD
Zscaler	4.44%	3.1%	3.8%
Akamai	4.57%	2.8%	3.9%

The heavier overlap is between the two cybersecurity funds. BUGG and HACK share a cyber platform core that CLDD does not hold:

Held by BUGG + HACK	BUGG	HACK
Palo Alto Networks	7.83%	9.8%
Fortinet	7.56%	9.1%
CrowdStrike	7.25%	8.7%
Okta	7.95%	3.7%
Rubrik	4.46%	2.6%
Gen Digital	4.16%	2.3%
Check Point	3.61%	2.2%

CLDD's links to the two cyber funds are thinner and sit in the cloud-security bridge — Cloudflare and Datadog (shared with HACK) and Qualys (shared with BUGG). Everything else in CLDD — Snowflake, ServiceNow, Salesforce, Workday, Twilio — is cloud software the cyber funds do not hold.

What Actually Led: the Cybersecurity Platform Leaders

Holding a stock and being driven by it are different things. Pulling the constituents' own price performance over the quarter shows the return came from one place — the platform leaders that BUGG and HACK share heavily and CLDD barely holds:

Company	Held by	6 May 2026	17 Jul 2026	Move*
Palo Alto Networks	BUGG + HACK	$183.68	$358.68	+95.3%
Fortinet	BUGG + HACK	$89.95	$161.61	+79.7%
CrowdStrike	BUGG + HACK	$117.02	$203.08	+73.5%
Zscaler	all three	$138.83	$149.94	+8.0%
Akamai	all three	$121.99	$120.19	−1.5%

Constituent closing prices from stockanalysis.com. The window (6 May to 17 July 2026) is roughly two-and-a-half months, slightly shorter than the funds' 90-day total-return period, so treat these moves as directional rather than exact.

The split in that table is the whole story. The platform consolidators — Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet, CrowdStrike — rose between roughly 74% and 95%, while the two names shared by all three funds (Zscaler and Akamai) were flat to slightly negative. So the shared spine that structurally connects the trio is not what produced the returns; the returns came from the cyber platform leaders that live in the two cybersecurity funds. The driver this quarter was not "software" and not "cloud" — it was cybersecurity at the platform-leader level.

Why BUGG Beat HACK Beat CLDD

The three funds finished in the order of how concentrated each is in those winning names:

• BUGG led on purity. Almost its entire ~30-name book is pure-play cybersecurity, so it captured the platform-leader move with little to drag on it — hence the highest return at +46.24%.

• HACK held the same leaders but carried ballast. It actually holds Palo Alto, Fortinet and CrowdStrike at higher weights than BUGG, yet returned less, because the rest of its book is large-cap IT — Cisco 7.1%, Broadcom 6.5%, plus Microsoft, Alphabet, Accenture, IBM and Infosys — names that did not run with the pure-play cyber leaders and diluted the blended return to +34.27%.

• CLDD rode a related but separate engine. Its overlap with the cyber leaders is only through the flat bridge names, so it missed most of the platform-leader move. Its +21.75% came from cloud and SaaS software (Datadog, Snowflake, ServiceNow, Salesforce), a neighbouring theme that rose less over the quarter.

The takeaway is the mirror image of a "one shared driver" week. When two funds pointed at the same theme from different index rules take the top two spots and a related fund follows, the overlap that matters is not the handful of names all three happen to share — it is the concentrated cluster the leaders hold and the laggard does not. This week that cluster was the cybersecurity platform leaders, and it displaced the semiconductor and memory theme that led the board a fortnight earlier. The weekly ASX ETF rankings and the leading theme are tracked on the ASX ETF Momentum Leaders page, and the same 90-day momentum lens applied to individual stocks is on the FMP Momentum Leaders board.

Access the Research Behind This Report

Finer Market Points tracks momentum across both ASX stocks and ASX-listed ETFs each week. Members receive the underlying educational data and weekly analysis discussed in reports like this one through the FMP YouTube Membership.

Remember that past performance is no guarantee of future results, and all trading involves risk.

Frequently Asked Questions

What do BUGG, HACK and CLDD have in common?

They were the three best-performing ASX-listed ETFs over the quarter to 17 July 2026, returning +46.24%, +34.27% and +21.75% respectively (Australian Warrant Exchange data). BUGG and HACK are both global cybersecurity funds and share a core of platform leaders — Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet, CrowdStrike and Okta. CLDD is a cloud-computing fund and overlaps only through cloud-security names such as Zscaler, Akamai, Cloudflare and Qualys.

Why did BUGG outperform HACK this quarter?

Both funds hold the same cybersecurity platform leaders, but BUGG is a concentrated pure-play cyber fund, while HACK's wider book also carries large-cap IT names such as Cisco, Broadcom, Microsoft and Alphabet that did not rise as fast. With less to drag on it, the purer fund captured more of the platform-leader move — +46.24% for BUGG versus +34.27% for HACK.

Was cybersecurity or cloud the driver of the top ASX ETFs this quarter?

Cybersecurity, at the platform-leader level. Over the window to 17 July 2026, Palo Alto Networks rose roughly 95%, Fortinet about 80% and CrowdStrike about 74% (directional figures from stockanalysis.com, 6 May to 17 July 2026). The cloud-security names shared across all three funds — Zscaler and Akamai — were flat to slightly negative, so the return came from cybersecurity rather than cloud.

What is the difference between BUGG and HACK?

Both are ASX-listed global cybersecurity ETFs, but they track different indices and are built differently. BUGG (Global X, Indxx Cybersecurity Index) is a concentrated pure-play basket of about 30 cyber names with a 0.47% management fee. HACK (Betashares, Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index) is a broader basket of about 42 names that adds large-cap technology and IT-services companies, with a 0.67% fee and a much larger fund size.

How much do BUGG, HACK and CLDD cost?

As published by the providers, BUGG charges management fees and costs of 0.47% per annum, and HACK and CLDD each charge 0.67% per annum. Fees are one factor among several and do not, on their own, indicate suitability.

---

Sources

#	Source	Detail	Accessed
1	Australian Warrant Exchange (AXW), an ASX market	ASX-listed ETF price and quarterly total return data	17 Jul 2026
2	Global X	BUGG index, holdings, management fee, fund size, inception	16 Jul 2026
3	Betashares	HACK and CLDD index, holdings, management fee, fund size, inception	16 Jul 2026
4	stockanalysis.com	Constituent closing prices (Palo Alto, Fortinet, CrowdStrike, Zscaler, Akamai), 6 May–17 Jul 2026	17 Jul 2026

Educational Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Consider your financial situation and seek professional advice before making investment decisions.

Finer Market Points Pty Ltd, CAR 1304002, AFSL 526688, ABN 87 645 284 680. This general information is educational only and not financial advice, recommendation, forecast or solicitation. Consider your objectives, financial situation and needs before acting. Seek appropriate professional advice. We accept no liability for any loss or damages arising from use. Authors and presenters may hold positions in discussed companies and investment products.