QETH vs CURE vs VBTC: Three Top ASX ETFs, Two With No Companies to Compare

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

The three ASX-listed ETFs leading FMP's weekly ETF momentum ranking to 4 September 2026 are the Betashares Ethereum ETF (QETH, +33.05% quarterly), the Global X S&P Biotech ETF (CURE, +23.28%) and the VanEck Bitcoin ETF (VBTC, +22.42%). No overlap between any pair of these three funds is possible, and for two of the three pairs that is true before any holdings data is even checked: QETH holds a single asset, ether, and VBTC holds a single asset, bitcoin — neither holds a portfolio of companies, so neither can share a company with anything, including each other.

What Is Each Fund Built to Do?

QETH (Betashares Ethereum ETF) aims to track the price of ether, before fees and expenses, in Australian dollars. It obtains that exposure by investing in the NYSE-listed Bitwise Ethereum ETF, a physically-backed structure holding ether in offline cold storage — not synthetic, not futures-based, and not a portfolio of companies. It listed on the ASX on 18 February 2025, charges 0.45% per annum and reported net assets of A$31.2 million as at 27 August 2026. Betashares states the fund "should be considered extremely high risk" and suitable only for informed investors seeking an allocation of 5% or less.

VBTC (VanEck Bitcoin ETF) gives investors exposure to the price of bitcoin, before fees and other costs. It was the first bitcoin ETF to list on the ASX, on 18 June 2024, charges 0.45% per annum and reported total net assets of A$305.56 million as at 3 September 2026 — roughly ten times QETH's size. VanEck recommends a minimum 5–7 year investment timeframe, describing the fund as suited to a "very high" to "extremely high" risk/return profile.

CURE (Global X S&P Biotech ETF) provides exposure to United States biotechnology companies via the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index, a modified equal-weight index rebalanced quarterly. It listed on the ASX on 8 November 2018 and charges 0.45% per annum — the same fee as both crypto funds — with fund size of A$50.2 million as at 20 August 2026 (Global X). Its book is spread thinly: the ten largest of its more than 100 holdings were only 13.99% of the fund as at 21 August 2026, and its single largest position, Moderna, was 2.65%.

	QETH	CURE	VBTC
Provider	Betashares	Global X	VanEck
Tracks	Ether (single asset)	S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index	Bitcoin (single asset)
Structure	Feeder into a physically-backed US ether fund	Equal-weight equity index, >100 holdings	Direct bitcoin price exposure
Management fee (p.a.)	0.45%	0.45%	0.45%
Fund size	A$31.2M (27 Aug 2026)	A$50.2M (20 Aug 2026)	A$305.6M (3 Sep 2026)
ASX inception	18 Feb 2025	8 Nov 2018	18 Jun 2024
Quarterly return to 4 Sep 2026	+33.05%	+23.28%	+22.42%
One-year return	−65.82%	+46.86%	−41.56%

All three funds charge an identical 0.45% management fee despite holding entirely different assets — a coincidence of pricing, not of exposure. CURE is the only one of the three with a positive one-year return; both crypto funds are still inside large annual declines even while leading the current quarter.

Why No Overlap Is Possible Between Any Pair

A three-fund comparison usually asks which companies the funds share. Here, that question cannot be asked for two of the three pairs, and the third pair has no meaningful answer either:

• QETH × VBTC: both are single-asset crypto funds. Neither holds a company. There is nothing to intersect.

• QETH × CURE, VBTC × CURE: CURE is an equity fund, but neither crypto fund holds any companies, so no intersection is possible regardless of what CURE holds.

• Within CURE alone: even if a crypto fund could theoretically hold equities, CURE's own book is too diffuse to produce a meaningful "shared name" finding — its largest position is 2.65% of the fund, and the ten largest combined are under 14%.

This is the first trio on this board in which two of the three funds hold no companies at all. The 28 August reading (BUGG/CLDD/QETH) had one non-equity fund against two equity funds that genuinely shared holdings; the 22 August reading (CURE/LHGG/CLDD) had three equity funds that happened to share nothing. This week removes the possibility of overlap twice over before any data is examined — the empty result is guaranteed by what each fund is, not discovered by checking what each fund holds.

Why Did Three Unrelated Funds Produce Similar Returns?

They did not produce the same return by any shared mechanism — the co-occurrence is recorded here without asserting a common cause. QETH's 33.05% and VBTC's 22.42% both reflect the same underlying pattern within the crypto asset class: a sharp monthly move (QETH +27.02%, VBTC +20.89%) inside a deeply negative one-year window (−65.82% and −41.56% respectively), meaning both funds are recovering from a much larger prior decline rather than extending a longer uptrend. CURE's 23.28% reflects a different pattern entirely — a diversified breadth move across US biotechnology, with its equal-weight structure meaning no single company explains the fund's return.

The category-level record corroborates the crypto half of this story. The ASX ETF categories ranking recorded Crypto Assets leading both its breadth measure (+24.35%) and leadership measure (+25.89%) for the week to 4 September 2026 — the first time one category has led both measures simultaneously since that tracking began 21 July 2026. QETH and VBTC's presence at the top of this individual-fund ranking is the same event read from a different angle.

What This Comparison Does Not Establish

Ranking three funds together by quarterly return is not a claim that they are comparable investments, or that a reader should hold all three, or any one of them, together. QETH and VBTC carry issuer risk warnings describing them as very high to extremely high risk, appropriate only for a small portfolio allocation over a long timeframe. CURE carries none of those crypto-specific warnings but is concentrated in a single country and a single industry. Fees, structure and risk profile differ materially between all three, and none of that is captured by a quarterly return figure alone. Traders considering any of these products in this situation may wish to speak with a qualified financial adviser about whether a particular product suits their circumstances.

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Do QETH, CURE and VBTC hold any of the same companies?

No overlap between any pair of these three funds is possible. QETH holds a single asset, ether, and VBTC holds a single asset, bitcoin — neither holds a portfolio of companies, so neither can share a holding with anything, including each other. CURE is a diversified US biotech equity fund, but even if a crypto fund could theoretically hold equities, CURE's book is too diffuse to produce a meaningful overlap — its largest single position is 2.65% of the fund.

What is the difference between QETH and VBTC?

Both are ASX-listed, single-asset crypto ETFs charging an identical 0.45% management fee, but they track different assets: QETH tracks ether via a feeder structure into a physically-backed US ether fund, while VBTC gives direct exposure to the price of bitcoin and was the first bitcoin ETF to list on the ASX. VBTC is roughly ten times larger by fund size (A$305.6M against A$31.2M as at their most recent reporting dates) and has a longer ASX listing history (June 2024 against February 2025 for QETH).

Why does CURE's largest holding matter so little to its return?

Because CURE tracks a modified equal-weight index rather than a market-capitalisation-weighted one. Its more than 100 holdings meant the ten largest were only 13.99% of the fund as at 21 August 2026, and the single largest position, Moderna, was just 2.65%. The practical effect is that CURE's quarterly return reflects broad strength across US biotechnology rather than the performance of any one company, which is why no individual holding can be named as its driver.

Are QETH and VBTC good investments?

This page does not assess that. Both funds' issuers describe them as very high to extremely high risk: Betashares states QETH "should be considered extremely high risk," suitable for an allocation of 5% or less, and VanEck recommends a 5–7 year minimum timeframe for VBTC. Both funds carry deeply negative one-year returns (QETH −65.82%, VBTC −41.56%) despite leading the current quarter. Category rankings and quarterly returns describe price movement that has already occurred; they are not assessments of suitability for any individual investor.

How is the leading ASX ETF trio determined each week?

Finer Market Points ranks all ASX-listed exchange traded products carrying a usable quarterly total return figure from a weekly export sourced from the Australian Warrant Exchange (AXW), an ASX market, and the top three by that measure become the subject of this comparison each week the trio changes. Full fund facts come from each provider's own fund page, factsheet or disclosure document, never from third-party aggregators. The individual-fund ranking is maintained on FMP's weekly ASX momentum leaders page.

---

Sources

#	Source	Detail	Accessed
1	Australian Warrant Exchange (AXW), an ASX market	ASX-listed ETF price and quarterly, monthly, weekly and one-year total return data, settled close 4 Sep 2026	4 Sep 2026
2	Betashares — QETH fund page	QETH structure, underlying fund, management fee, net assets, inception and the issuer's own risk statement (as at 27 Aug 2026)	4 Sep 2026
3	Global X — CURE fund page	CURE index, management fee, fund size, holdings count and top 15 holdings with weights (as at 21 Aug 2026)	4 Sep 2026
4	VanEck — VBTC fund page	VBTC structure, management fee, net assets (as at 3 Sep 2026), inception and the issuer's own risk statement	4 Sep 2026
5	Finer Market Points	Momentum research framework and ETF watchlist methodology	4 Sep 2026

All fund facts on this page come from each provider's own fund page or portfolio disclosure. No crossover or Venn overlap analysis was performed beyond confirming its impossibility, because two of the three funds hold no company-level portfolio to intersect.

This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

The information, opinions and other materials appearing on this website are of a general nature only and shall not be construed as advice. 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. This is not taxation advice. Rose Bay Equities accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information, opinions or other materials provided on or accessible through this website. This website has not been prepared with reference to your individual financial or personal circumstances. You should not rely on any advice on this website without first seeking appropriate professional, financial and legal advice. Further, where Rose Bay Equities makes third party material available or accessible through this website you acknowledge that Rose Bay Equities is a distributor and not a publisher of that content and that its editorial control is limited to the selection of those materials to make available. We accept no liability for any loss or damages arising from use. Authors and presenters may hold positions in discussed companies and investment products.