REMX vs SETM: Comparing a Focused Rare Earth ETF With a Broader Critical Materials Basket

Key Takeaways

• Exposure scope: REMX is a narrowly focused rare earth and strategic metals fund, while SETM casts a much wider net across uranium, copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, manganese, rare earths, and silver.
• Diversification: REMX holds roughly 32–37 names with a top-10 concentration near 60%, whereas SETM spans roughly 86–101 issuers with materially lower single-stock concentration.
• Cost structure: REMX carries a lower net expense ratio of 0.58% versus 0.65% for SETM, giving the VanEck fund a small structural cost advantage.
• Risk profile: REMX skews toward small- and mid-cap miners with heavy China and Australia exposure, while SETM tilts toward larger-cap, developed-market issuers concentrated in Canada and the U.S.
• Tickeron AI Verdict: On balance, the AI framework favors SETM for its broader diversification, more balanced commodity mix, and stronger relative trend consistency.

Why These ETFs Stand Out in the Critical Minerals Space

Rare earths, lithium, uranium, and copper remain central to efforts aimed at securing supply chains and advancing electrification. In this setting, REMX and SETM offer distinct approaches to the same theme. REMX provides concentrated exposure to rare earth and strategic metals, whereas SETM delivers a diversified portfolio across the full range of critical materials. Investors evaluating a targeted thematic position versus a wider energy-transition allocation benefit from examining how each fund is built, what it holds, and how it has responded to recent market conditions. I also checked this using Tickeron’s AI Screener to see how the two compare on key metrics.

REMX: VanEck’s Concentrated Rare Earth and Strategic Metals Approach

REMX tracks the MVIS Global Rare Earth/Strategic Metals Index and has been in operation since October 2010. It targets companies deriving at least 50 percent of revenue from rare earth and strategic metals production, refining, or recycling. The fund typically holds 32–37 securities and is non-diversified, so a small number of holdings can influence results significantly. Recent top positions have included ALB, China Northern Rare Earth, Lynas Rare Earths, MP, SQM, Pilbara Minerals, and Xiamen Tungsten, with notable weight in lithium and rare earth producers and exposure concentrated in Australia and China. The fund uses market-cap weighting with an 8 percent issuer cap and rebalances quarterly at a net expense ratio of 0.58 percent.

SETM: Sprott’s Wider Net Across Energy Transition Materials

SETM follows the Nasdaq Sprott Critical Materials Index and launched in February 2023, later adopting its current name in October 2024 while keeping the same objective and methodology. It holds approximately 86–101 issuers that generate at least 50 percent of revenue or assets from mining, exploration, production, recycling, refining, or smelting of energy transition materials. Recent top holdings have featured FCX, CCJ, Lynas Rare Earths, Pilbara Minerals, Kazatomprom, Teck Resources, ALB, HL, UEC, and SQM. The fund is market-cap weighted, rebalances semi-annually, remains non-diversified, and carries a 0.65 percent expense ratio, with primary country exposure in Canada and the U.S. across uranium, copper, lithium, rare earths, and precious metals.

The Broader Industry and Thematic Context

Both funds operate amid policy efforts to reduce reliance on Chinese supply chains and rising power demand from electrification and data centers. These dynamics have lent support to uranium and copper prices, while lithium and rare earth prices have faced pressure from oversupply. Regulatory developments, export controls, and changes in battery technology continue to act as important variables. The contrast between resilient uranium and copper momentum and softer conditions in lithium and rare earths helps explain recent performance differences between the two ETFs.

Recent Performance and Structural Positioning

SETM has drawn support from its uranium and copper allocations in recent periods, segments that have shown steadier price backing. REMX, with greater exposure to lithium and rare earth producers, has encountered more persistent pricing challenges, contributing to relative underperformance. Structurally, REMX’s higher concentration and smaller-cap orientation can increase volatility in commodity downturns. SETM’s larger issuer count and higher average market capitalization provide a more diversified profile, although both remain high-beta thematic vehicles. From what I see, the commodity mix and market-cap quality differences drive much of the divergence in risk and return characteristics.

Integrating AI Tools Into ETF Analysis

When evaluating thematic ETFs like these, I often turn to Tickeron’s AI Screener to cross-check holdings, sector exposures, and trend signals against broader market data. This helps surface how the two funds align with current technical and fundamental patterns without replacing deeper fundamental review. It has become a regular part of my process for comparing similar vehicles in fast-moving commodity themes.

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

Industry description

Market Cap

High and low price notable news

Volume