CHPS vs PSI: Contrasting Global and Concentrated Semiconductor ETF Strategies

Key Takeaways

• Different construction: CHPS tracks a global, ESG-screened market-cap index, while PSI tracks a U.S.-only quantitative model that selects and weights roughly 30 semiconductor stocks.
• Cost gap is meaningful: CHPS carries a 0.15% expense ratio versus 0.56% for PSI, giving CHPS a clear structural cost advantage over time.
• Exposure breadth: CHPS holds about 60–65 global names spanning the U.S., Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and Europe, whereas PSI is concentrated in U.S.-listed companies.
• Risk profile: PSI is more concentrated and historically higher-beta, while CHPS offers broader diversification across the semiconductor value chain.
• Methodology: PSI rebalances and reconstitutes quarterly with elevated turnover, while CHPS is a lower-turnover, passive market-cap approach.
• Tickeron AI Verdict: On balance, Tickeron's AI favors CHPS for its lower cost, broader diversification, and more consistent structural profile.

Introduction

Semiconductor ETFs have drawn attention from investors looking for exposure to the artificial-intelligence buildout, cloud data centers, automotive electrification, and the broader digitization of the global economy. CHPS and PSI both target the semiconductor industry, yet they follow fundamentally different approaches. CHPS uses a global, sustainability-filtered, market-cap-weighted strategy, while PSI relies on a proprietary quantitative selection model applied to a concentrated group of U.S. semiconductor companies. For investors comparing these ETFs, understanding the structural differences matters more than short-term price movements when assessing positioning, sector exposure, and fund performance.

A Closer Look at CHPS

CHPS is a passively managed fund that seeks to track the Solactive Semiconductor ESG Screened Index. The index is market-cap weighted and applies environmental, social, and governance screens from Sustainalytics. The fund typically holds roughly 60–65 semiconductor companies from across the global supply chain. The portfolio extends well beyond U.S. names and includes meaningful allocations to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, ASML Holding, SK Hynix, Tokyo Electron, and other suppliers in Asia and Europe. This gives exposure to memory, foundry, and lithography segments that U.S.-only funds often underweight. Recent top holdings have included AMD, NVDA, MU, AVGO, TXN, INTC, and LRCX. The expense ratio stands at 0.15%, and the fund is classified as non-diversified. I also checked this using Tickeron’s AI Screener to see how the holdings align with broader industry trends.

A Closer Look at PSI

PSI is a passively managed fund that seeks to track the Dynamic Semiconductor Intellidex Index. Instead of a straightforward market-cap approach, the index uses a quantitative model that evaluates companies on fundamental growth, valuation, investment timeliness, and risk factors to select and weight roughly 30 U.S.-listed semiconductor stocks. The result is a more concentrated, domestically focused portfolio. Recent top holdings have included MU, NVDA, AMAT, LRCX, AMD, KLAC, ADI, and INTC, along with smaller names such as SMTC and COHU. PSI rebalances and reconstitutes quarterly, which contributes to higher portfolio turnover. Its expense ratio is 0.56%, and the fund is non-diversified.

Industry and Thematic Context

Both funds operate in a semiconductor sector shaped by the artificial-intelligence capex cycle. Demand for high-bandwidth memory, advanced logic, and specialized accelerators has supported revenues, while foundry and equipment suppliers have gained from capacity expansion. The sector remains cyclical, however, with memory pricing, inventory cycles, and consumer-electronics demand capable of producing sharp quarterly swings. Geopolitics and supply-chain policy add further complexity through export controls, onshoring incentives, and regional manufacturing initiatives. These factors affect each fund differently: CHPS captures the global supply chain directly, while PSI’s U.S.-centric focus reduces foreign listing exposure yet remains tied to worldwide demand. From what I see, these macro drivers influence both sector exposure and the relative risk in each portfolio.

Performance and Positioning Insights

Over recent market cycles, both CHPS and PSI have participated in the semiconductor rally driven by AI-related demand. Their performance has diverged in line with their construction. PSI’s concentrated, higher-beta, U.S.-focused portfolio has tended to amplify both gains and drawdowns, making it a more volatile way to express a semiconductor view. CHPS’s broader global footprint has moderated single-name and single-region risk, though it also introduces foreign-market and currency dynamics. Positioning differences appear in concentration as well: PSI’s roughly 30 holdings and elevated turnover contrast with CHPS’s wider roster of about 60–65 names and its lower-turnover, market-cap approach. During periods when large U.S. mega-caps lead, PSI can benefit from concentration; when leadership broadens across equipment, memory, and Asian foundries, CHPS’s diversification tends to smooth relative performance.

Using AI Tools for ETF Research

In my own analysis, I often rely on Tickeron’s AI Screener to compare ETFs like CHPS and PSI. The tool lets me filter across technical patterns, fundamentals, trends, and performance metrics, which helps surface relevant data more efficiently than manual review. It has proven especially useful when evaluating sector exposure and structural differences across funds in fast-moving industries such as semiconductors.

Tickeron AI Verdict

Based on observable structural factors, Tickeron's AI would likely favor CHPS over PSI in the current environment. CHPS offers a materially lower expense ratio (0.15% versus 0.56%), broader diversification across roughly 60–65 global holdings, and a lower-turnover market-cap methodology—attributes that tend to support consistency and cost efficiency over time. PSI’s quantitative selection and higher concentration can add value during narrowly led, U.S.-centric rallies, but its elevated cost, turnover, and single-region exposure introduce comparatively higher risk. On balance, CHPS’s more balanced diversification profile, cost advantage, and broad semiconductor value-chain exposure give it the more favorable risk-adjusted positioning in this ETF comparison.

Disclaimer

The information on this webpage is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as investment advice, a recommendation to purchase or sell any security, or an offer or solicitation related to investments. It does not consider your personal financial situation, goals, or risk profile, and all investing carries inherent risks, including the possibility of losing your entire investment. For more details, please review our full disclaimer.

Disclaimers and Limitations

Notable companies

Industry description

Market Cap

High and low price notable news

Volume