CURE vs LHGG vs CLDD 2026: Three Top ASX ETFs With Nothing in Common

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

Data current as of 21 August 2026.

The Global X S&P Biotech ETF (CURE), the Lakehouse Global Growth Fund Active ETF (LHGG) and the Betashares Cloud Computing ETF (CLDD) were the three best-performing ASX-listed ETFs over the quarter to 21 August 2026, returning +21.27%, +19.15% and +18.61% respectively (Australian Warrant Exchange data). They finished within 2.7 percentage points of each other, and not one company can be confirmed as held by more than one of them. This is the first week on this board where the leading trio has had no shared centre, and it makes the usual question of this comparison redundant. There is no common driver to find. This page compares how the three funds are built, what each fund's return actually came from, and why one of the three cannot be fully compared at all.

What Each ETF Is Built to Do

The three sit in different asset universes and are constructed on three different principles:

• CURE — US biotechnology, spread thin. Tracks the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index: companies classified in the biotechnology sub-industry of the S&P Total Market Index, weighted on a modified equal-weight basis and rebalanced quarterly. The book runs to more than a hundred positions, dominated by small and mid-capitalisation drug developers rather than large pharmaceutical companies. Its ten largest holdings were 13.99% of the fund, and its largest single position was 2.65%.

• LHGG — fifteen companies, chosen, and not named. Not an index fund. Lakehouse Capital runs a high-conviction, low-turnover portfolio of mid- and large-capitalisation growth companies in developed markets, quoted on the ASX as an Active ETF. Fifteen holdings plus 5.59% cash, against a typical cash range of 5% to 15% — so the fund is currently at the bottom of its own cash band. The manager discloses the portfolio by industry classification and weight band rather than by company name — a point returned to below, because it changes what can honestly be said about this fund.

• CLDD — cloud software, indexed. Tracks the Indxx Global Cloud Computing Index: software-as-a-service, cloud-infrastructure and platform businesses — Datadog, Snowflake, ServiceNow, Workday, Twilio, Cloudflare. Around 38 names, and by construction none of the mega-cap cloud providers.

Side-by-Side Comparison

	CURE	LHGG	CLDD
Provider	Global X	Lakehouse Capital	Betashares
Index tracked	S&P Biotechnology Select Industry	None — actively managed (benchmark: MSCI All Country World Index)	Indxx Global Cloud Computing
What it holds	US biotechnology, modified equal weight	15 global growth companies	~38 cloud & SaaS software names
Number of holdings	Over 100	15 (plus 5.59% cash)	~38
Concentration	Top 10 = 13.99% of the fund	Top 3 disclosed bands ≈ 31% at midpoint	Top 10 ≈ 45% of the fund
Holdings disclosed by company?	Yes	No — by industry band only	Yes
Structure	Physical index ETF	Active ETF (quoted managed fund)	Physical index ETF
Management fee & costs (p.a.)	0.45%	1.30% + 15% performance fee	0.67%
Fund size	A$50.2M	A$227.5M	A$41.4M
Currency	Unhedged	Unhedged	Unhedged
Inception	Nov 2018	Dec 2017	Feb 2021 (ASX)
Quarterly total return	+21.27%	+19.15%	+18.61%
Monthly return	+4.80%	+15.78%	+11.94%
Weekly return	+3.42%	0.00%	−6.57%

Weekly, monthly and quarterly total returns sourced from the Australian Warrant Exchange (AXW), an ASX market, to the settled close of 21 August 2026. All fund facts are taken from each provider's own fund page or portfolio disclosure, dated in the Sources table; no third-party fund data is used. Fees are factual comparison points that do not, on their own, indicate suitability.

Whether the Three Funds Overlap at All

No company can be confirmed as held by more than one of these three funds.

CURE and CLDD both publish full holdings by company, and between them the overlap is exactly nothing — a US biotechnology index and a global cloud software index have no natural intersection, which is unsurprising but worth stating, because for the six weeks before this one the leading funds on this board were bound together by a shared spine of cyber and cloud names and the whole board could be explained by a dozen companies.

LHGG is a different problem. Lakehouse discloses its portfolio through a Material Portfolio Information file that gives, for each of the fifteen positions, a GICS sub-industry, a country, a currency and a minimum, maximum and midpoint weight — but no company name:

Sub-industry	Country	Midpoint weight
Broadline Retail	United States	11.01%
Application Software	Japan	10.78%
Transaction & Payment Processing Services	Netherlands	9.45%
Systems Software	United States	8.85%
Application Software	United States	7.93%
Application Software	Canada	7.89%
Systems Software	United States	5.91%
Health Care Technology	United States	5.35%
Broadline Retail	United States	4.60%
Transaction & Payment Processing Services	United States	4.55%
Interactive Media & Services	United States	4.54%
Application Software	United States	3.97%
Broadline Retail	United States	3.95%
Financial Exchanges & Data	United States	2.43%
Investment Banking & Brokerage	United States	1.78%

Lakehouse Capital Material Portfolio Information, 21 August 2026. Cash of 5.59% is held separately across seven currencies.

The bands support one honest observation about overlap and no more. LHGG holds two United States Systems Software positions, at midpoint weights of 8.85% and 5.91%. That is the GICS sub-industry containing ServiceNow, which CLDD holds at 4.0%. An overlap is plausible; it is not confirmable, and it is not stated as fact on this page. Several aggregator sites do publish a named holdings list for LHGG. Those lists are not the manager's, they disagree with one another, and the most recent of them was dated seven weeks before this data.

There is one further point the bands do support, and it is a distinction rather than a similarity. LHGG's book is heavily weighted to software — four Application Software and two Systems Software positions, roughly 44.9% at midpoint — and it holds an Interactive Media & Services position and three Broadline Retail positions. CLDD's index, by construction, excludes the mega-cap platform companies that dominate those classifications. Two funds with substantial software exposure whose exposure very likely does not touch.

Why Three Unrelated Funds Produced the Same Return

They did not produce it the same way.

CURE: breadth, and a trap in the holdings list

CURE's ten largest holdings all rose sharply over the recent measurable window:

Company	Weight	11 Jun – 21 Aug	Final month
Moderna	2.65%	+192%	+143%
Twist Bioscience	1.84%	+97%	+52%
Oruka Therapeutics	1.50%	+58%	+15%
Apogee Therapeutics	1.49%	+51%	+0.4%
Kymera Therapeutics	1.42%	+44%	+6%
Praxis Precision Medicines	1.39%	+52%	+18%
Halozyme Therapeutics	1.38%	+53%	+38%
Natera	1.37%	+51%	+24%
Revolution Medicines	1.34%	+40%	+14%
Dianthus Therapeutics	1.31%	+45%	+5%

Those ten averaged roughly +68%, against a fund return of +21.27% over a longer period. The gap is the point, and Moderna is the clearest illustration of it anywhere in this series. Moderna nearly tripled over the window and rose about 143% in the final month alone — and that is precisely why it is the fund's largest position at 2.65%. In a modified equal-weight index the biggest holdings are biggest because they have already risen since the last rebalance. A stock that triples inside a 2.65% position contributes under two percentage points to the fund.

So the top-10 list of a fund like CURE is a record of what has worked, not an explanation of what the fund did. Ten positions at 13.99% of the book cannot produce a fund's return in any case. CURE's ranking is a breadth signal: US biotechnology is rising widely enough that a thinly spread index has outpaced concentrated thematic funds. That is a different kind of statement from the one this board has carried for six weeks, and it should not be read as a claim about any of the companies above.

LHGG: concentration, and a month that did the work

The opposite shape, and the fund that can be described least precisely. Three disclosed positions carry roughly 31% of the portfolio at midpoint and the top six carry about 56%, so a small number of decisions produced the result. What the return data shows is a late move: LHGG returned +15.78% over the month — the third-strongest monthly figure on the whole board, behind only the two gold-miner funds — while its quarterly return fell six points, from +25.36% to +19.15%. A strong month against a falling quarter means the fund's gains are recent and a stronger period has rolled out of the back of the 90-day window.

Its weekly return was exactly 0.00%: the unit price did not move over the week, and has now sat at 185 cents for two consecutive weeks. That is unusual for a fund of this size and is noted here rather than read through.

Because the manager does not name holdings, no company-level attribution for LHGG appears on this page. That is a limit of the disclosure, not of the analysis.

CLDD: still third, and now falling

CLDD is the only one of the three going backwards. It fell 6.57% over the week and lost 12.86 percentage points of quarterly return, dropping from second place. Its monthly return of +11.94% is still strong, which is the signature of a fund whose engine ran hard and then stopped: the cloud and data-platform names that lifted it into second place a week ago — Workday, Snowflake, ServiceNow, Qualys, Cloudflare — carried it through the month, and the week reversed. The fuller account of CLDD's rise and the cyber funds it overtook is in BUGG, CLDD and HACK compared side by side.

What an Empty Venn Diagram Tells

The crossover analysis on this page has, until now, always resolved to a shared engine: a group of companies held heavily by two or three of the leading funds, whose own returns explained the board. This week there is no such group, and the absence is more informative than a small overlap would have been.

When the leading funds share holdings, the board is measuring one thing happening at scale — a theme re-rating, which shows up in several funds at once because they own the same companies. When the leading funds share nothing, the board is measuring the absence of a leader. Three unrelated books reached the top not by accelerating but by falling less than the funds above them: CURE was the only fund in last week's Top 10 whose quarterly return improved, and it rose seven places without a large move. Meanwhile the two funds with the strongest weekly and monthly returns on the entire board — the gold miner funds MNRS and GDX — are not in this comparison at all, because their quarterly returns were negative a week ago and a 90-day measure has not caught up with them.

That is the honest reading of an empty centre, and it is why this comparison is rebuilt from the holdings every week rather than carried forward. The weekly rankings for every ASX-listed ETF are on the weekly ETF momentum ranking, the group-level view is in every ASX exchange traded product grouped by category, and the board as it stood while cybersecurity still led is recorded in the board when cybersecurity still led.

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 CURE, LHGG and CLDD have in common?

Only their ranking. They were the three best-performing ASX-listed ETFs over the quarter to 21 August 2026, returning +21.27%, +19.15% and +18.61% respectively (Australian Warrant Exchange data). Beyond that they have almost nothing in common: CURE is a modified equal-weight US biotechnology index fund holding over a hundred positions, LHGG is an actively managed fifteen-stock global growth portfolio, and CLDD is a cloud software index fund of around 38 names. No company can be confirmed as held by more than one of them.

Do the top three ASX ETFs share any holdings?

No confirmable ones. CURE and CLDD both publish full holdings by company and have no company in common. LHGG cannot be checked at company level, because Lakehouse Capital discloses its portfolio by GICS sub-industry, country and weight band rather than by company name. The closest the disclosure comes is that LHGG holds two United States Systems Software positions, at midpoint weights of 8.85% and 5.91% — the classification that contains ServiceNow, which CLDD holds at 4.0%. That makes an overlap plausible but not confirmable, and it is not stated as fact.

Why did CURE reach first place with a weekly return of only 3.42%?

Because the funds ranked above it fell. Over the week to 21 August 2026 the Global X Cybersecurity ETF (BUGG) fell 11.55%, the Betashares Global Cybersecurity ETF (HACK) fell 10.13%, the Betashares Cloud Computing ETF (CLDD) fell 6.57% and the Global X Global Technology ETF (TECH) fell 4.54%. Each also lost a strong week from thirteen weeks earlier out of the back of the 90-day measurement window. CURE was the only fund in the previous week's Top 10 whose quarterly return improved, rising from 17.33% to 21.27%, and it moved from eighth place to first.

Why do CURE's biggest holdings show much bigger gains than the fund itself?

Because those holdings are only 13.99% of the fund, and they are the largest holdings precisely because they have already risen. CURE tracks a modified equal-weight index that is rebalanced quarterly, so between rebalances the positions that gain the most drift to the top of the weight table. Its ten largest holdings averaged roughly +68% over the window from 11 June to 21 August 2026, while the fund returned +21.27% over a longer period. Moderna is the clearest case: it nearly tripled and that is why it is the largest holding at 2.65%, a weight at which even a tripling adds under two percentage points to the fund. For an equal-weight fund the top-10 list records what has already worked rather than explaining the return.

What is the difference between CURE, LHGG and CLDD?

They invest in different things and are built on different principles. CURE (Global X, 0.45% per annum) tracks the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index, holding over a hundred US drug and diagnostics developers on a modified equal-weight basis. LHGG (Lakehouse Capital, 1.30% per annum plus a 15% performance fee) is not an index fund at all — it is an actively managed portfolio of fifteen global growth companies plus 5.59% cash, disclosed by industry classification rather than by company. CLDD (Betashares, 0.67% per annum) tracks the Indxx Global Cloud Computing Index, holding around 38 software-as-a-service and cloud-platform companies. Fund sizes are A$50.2 million, A$227.5 million and A$41.4 million respectively.

Does Lakehouse disclose the holdings of the LHGG ETF?

Not by company name. Lakehouse Capital publishes a Material Portfolio Information file that lists each of the fund's fifteen positions by GICS sub-industry, country and currency, with a minimum, maximum and midpoint weight band, and gives exact weights only for its cash balances. Several third-party websites do publish named holdings lists for the fund, but those lists are not the manager's, they disagree with one another, and the most recent was dated seven weeks before this data. Nothing on this page names an LHGG holding.

How much do CURE, LHGG and CLDD cost?

As published by the providers, CURE charges management fees and costs of 0.45% per annum, CLDD 0.67% per annum, and LHGG a management fee of 1.30% per annum plus a performance fee of 15% of the amount by which the fund's return exceeds the higher of its benchmark and its high watermark, with a buy/sell spread of 0.15% either way. The headline numbers are not comparable on their own: CURE and CLDD are index trackers with no performance fee, while LHGG is an actively managed portfolio benchmarked to the MSCI All Country World Index. 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 weekly, monthly and quarterly total return data, settled close 21 Aug 2026	22 Aug 2026
2	Global X — CURE fund page	CURE index, management fee, fund size, inception, hedging, distribution frequency, and full holdings with weights (holdings as at 21 Aug 2026)	22 Aug 2026
3	Lakehouse Capital — LHGG fund page	Fund size (31 Jul 2026), holdings count and investment approach	22 Aug 2026
3a	Lakehouse Capital — LHGG Monthly Update, June 2026	Management fee, performance fee, buy/sell spread, benchmark, inception date, distribution frequency, typical cash range and number of stocks	22 Aug 2026
4	Lakehouse Capital — Material Portfolio Information (LHGG20260821)	Portfolio disclosure by GICS sub-industry, country, currency and weight band; cash weights, as at 21 Aug 2026	22 Aug 2026
5	Betashares — CLDD fund page	CLDD index, holdings, management costs, fund size and inception (as at 16 Jul 2026)	22 Aug 2026
6	stockanalysis.com	Constituent closing prices only (Moderna, Twist Bioscience, Oruka, Apogee, Kymera, Praxis, Halozyme, Natera, Revolution Medicines, Dianthus), 11 Jun – 21 Aug 2026	22 Aug 2026
7	S&P Dow Jones Indices	S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index methodology — modified equal weight, quarterly rebalance	22 Aug 2026

All fund facts on this page come from each provider's own fund page or portfolio disclosure. Third-party sources are used for share closing prices only. Constituent price movements are directional, computed from stockanalysis.com dated daily closes between 11 June and 21 August 2026 — a window roughly three weeks shorter than the funds' own 90-day measurement period.

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.