Thematic ETF Valuation RadarThe Thematic ETF Valuation Radar values what each thematic ETF actually holds — a conservative look-through discounted cash flow of every underlying company — and ranks the funds by how far their holdings collectively trade above or below combined intrinsic value. 14 funds, refreshed monthly, snapshot 2026-09-01. A measurement, never a buy/sell/hold call. How it works, and how to read it.
14 thematic ETFs ranked by look-through value
How this ranking works, and how to read it
Thematic ETFs are theme-locked — they can’t rotate out of an expensive theme the way a broad index fund self-cleanses — so a point-in-time look-through valuation actually has teeth. For each fund we value every underlying holding, weight each holding’s premium or discount by its fund weight, and sum.
- Same engine as the screens — a conservative 5-year discounted cash flow; a dividend or excess-return model for banks, insurers and regulated utilities; an EV/Sales comparison for a small tail the cash-flow models reject.
- Conservative growth input — the slower of a holding’s multi-year revenue trend and its multi-year free-cash-flow trend, so one distorted year at one company can’t skew the fund’s number.
- Coverage gate — a fund is ranked only when the holdings we can value cover at least 70% of its weight.
- Sanity band — a single holding whose model output lands outside roughly −200% to +100% is treated as unvaluable (an ADR currency mismatch, a one-off-inflated cash flow), never blended into the average.
- A premium is partly the model’s caution — the DCF runs deliberately bearish on growth, so fast-growing and AI-exposed themes will read as steep premiums here by model limitation, not necessarily mispricing. A theme can also trade above a conservative intrinsic value for years while compounding.
Ordered by look-through value, descending — the fund whose holdings sit furthest below their combined intrinsic value first, the most expensive theme last. 2026-09-01 snapshot. Not financial advice.
Want to value a single stock? Open the DCF Valuation tool →
| # | ETF | Theme | Price | Implied fair value | vs intrinsic value | Coverage | Fee | Holdings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CLDD.AX |
Cloud computing | AUD 15.65 | AUD 12.90 | -18% (premium) | 95% | 0.67% | 38 |
| 2 | DRUG.AX |
Global healthcare | AUD 9.00 | AUD 7.07 | -21% (premium) | 92% | 0.57% | 59 |
| 3 | IXJ |
Global healthcare | USD 104.24 | USD 79.49 | -24% (premium) | 92% | 0.41% | 110 |
| 4 | MNRS.AX |
Gold miners | AUD 16.01 | AUD 11.06 | -31% (premium) | 78% | 0.57% | 47 |
| 5 | HACK.AX |
Cybersecurity | AUD 17.87 | AUD 11.31 | -37% (premium) | 94% | 0.67% | 42 |
| 6 | IGV |
Software | USD 109.98 | USD 65.71 | -40% (premium) | 98% | 0.41% | 106 |
| 7 | ITA |
Aerospace & defense | USD 228.35 | USD 133.51 | -42% (premium) | 97% | 0.40% | 48 |
| 8 | ETHI.AX |
Sustainability / ethical | AUD 16.95 | AUD 9.68 | -43% (premium) | 89% | 0.59% | 198 |
| 9 | ERTH.AX |
Climate innovation | AUD 10.20 | AUD 5.79 | -43% (premium) | 81% | 0.65% | 88 |
| 10 | QLTY.AX |
Quality factor | AUD 33.45 | AUD 18.04 | -46% (premium) | 93% | 0.35% | 150 |
| 11 | ATEC.AX |
Australian technology | AUD 22.75 | AUD 10.82 | -52% (premium) | 94% | 0.48% | 42 |
| 12 | ASIA.AX |
Asia technology | AUD 20.43 | AUD 9.36 | -54% (premium) | 76% | 0.67% | 50 |
| 13 | RBTZ.AX |
Robotics & AI | AUD 14.30 | AUD 6.46 | -55% (premium) | 79% | 0.57% | 60 |
| 14 | SOXX |
Semiconductors | USD 511.04 | USD 131.31 | -74% (premium) | 100% | 0.35% | 30 |
🇦🇺 ASX stocks? Most Undervalued ASX screen →
🇺🇸 US stocks? Most Undervalued S&P 500 screen →
🇮🇳 Indian stocks? Most Undervalued NIFTY 500 screen →
🇰🇷 Korean stocks? Most Undervalued KOSPI 200 screen →
🇯🇵 Japanese stocks? Most Undervalued Nikkei 225 screen →
🇪🇺 European stocks? Most Undervalued Europe screen →
About this page
A monthly look-through valuation of thematic ETFs — ASX-listed and marquee US-listed. Holdings come from each issuer’s published full-holdings file; prices and fundamentals are a monthly snapshot from Yahoo Finance. The same engine powers KashVector’s DCF tool and its undervalued screens.
Implied fair value is where a fund would trade if its price reflected the combined intrinsic value of its holdings — shown alongside the current price so the premium is concrete, not just a percentage.
Frequently asked questions
What does the "vs intrinsic value" number mean?
The fund-weighted average premium or discount of the fund’s holdings to their own combined intrinsic value. A negative number ("premium") means the holdings collectively trade above what the models say they are worth; a positive number ("discount") means below.
Is this a buy list?
No. Nothing here is financial advice and it is never a buy, sell or hold call. It is a measurement of how much optimism is priced into each theme — a starting point for research, not a verdict.
Why is nearly every fund showing a premium?
Partly the market, partly the method. The DCF is deliberately conservative on growth and caps it, so it systematically values fast-growing companies below their market price. An across-the-board premium in a strong market is normal and not on its own a sign of mispricing.
Why do AI and big-tech names read as heavily overvalued?
A 5-year discounted cash flow cannot price a genuine platform shift, and it penalises companies whose growth currently shows up as capital investment rather than free cash flow. Large semiconductor and cloud businesses often read as steep premiums here for that reason — it reflects the model’s known limitation as much as the price.
How is the growth rate estimated?
The slower of a holding’s multi-year revenue trend and its multi-year free-cash-flow trend (about four years of history), rather than a single year’s figure. One distorted year — an earnings rebound off a depressed base — would otherwise drive a mature company’s projection and skew the whole fund’s number.
What is "coverage" and why does it matter?
The share of a fund’s weight we could put a valuation on. The look-through number is computed over the covered portion only, so a fund at 75% coverage tells you less than one at 100%. Below 70% we publish no headline figure.
Why thematic ETFs and not VAS or IVV?
Broad market-cap index funds reconstitute — they drop what gets expensive — so a look-through verdict on them has little predictive value. Thematic funds are locked to their theme, which is what makes the measurement meaningful.
How often is it updated?
Monthly. Holdings come from each issuer’s published full-holdings file; prices and fundamentals are a monthly snapshot from Yahoo Finance, not a live feed.
⚠️ This is an automated measurement, not financial advice or a recommendation. It shows how a fund’s holdings trade versus a conservative combined DCF value — mechanical model output, highly sensitive to assumptions, and never a call to buy, hold or sell. It does not read news, judge management, or weigh competitive position or regulatory risk. Always do your own research.