PHO
Price
$70.55
Change
-$0.29 (-0.41%)
Updated
Sep 4 closing price
Net Assets
1.99B
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
SETM
Price
$33.96
Change
-$0.33 (-0.96%)
Updated
Sep 4 closing price
Net Assets
619.45M
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

PHO vs SETM

PHO vs SETM Comparison Chart in %
loading
loading
View a ticker or compare two or three
A.I.Advisor
Aug 26, 2026

Which ETF would AI Choose? Invesco Water Resources ETF (PHO) vs. Sprott Critical Materials ETF (SETM)

Key Takeaways

  • Invesco Water Resources ETF (PHO) provides targeted exposure to U.S. water resources companies focused on conservation and purification, while Sprott Critical Materials ETF (SETM) offers global access to critical minerals essential for energy transition technologies.
  • PHO tracks the NASDAQ OMX US Water Index with a passive strategy and 0.59% expense ratio, featuring fewer holdings concentrated in water infrastructure and technology.
  • SETM follows the Nasdaq Sprott Critical Materials Index, also passively managed but with a higher 0.65% expense ratio and broader diversification across 100–120 holdings in uranium, copper, lithium, and rare earths.
  • PHO emphasizes U.S.-listed companies in a defensive thematic sector with stable demand drivers, whereas SETM captures cyclical growth tied to global electrification and supply-chain needs.
  • Both ETFs maintain quarterly or semi-annual rebalancing, low structural leverage, and standard open-end fund liquidity profiles suitable for long-term thematic allocation.
  • Cost efficiency slightly favors PHO, while SETM provides greater sector breadth within critical materials, influencing relative risk and return profiles across market cycles.

Introduction

Investors seeking thematic exposure to essential resources increasingly evaluate specialized ETFs that address water sustainability and critical minerals for the energy transition. Invesco Water Resources ETF (PHO) and Sprott Critical Materials ETF (SETM) do not compete directly but instead offer complementary strategies targeting related yet distinct segments of the broader resources landscape. PHO concentrates on U.S. water infrastructure and purification technologies, while SETM spans global mining equities tied to materials powering electrification. Comparing these funds highlights differences in geographic focus, sector breadth, expense structures, and positioning within evolving macro trends such as infrastructure investment and supply-chain resilience.

Invesco Water Resources ETF (PHO) Overview

Invesco Water Resources ETF (PHO) is a passively managed exchange-traded fund that seeks to track the NASDAQ OMX US Water Index. The fund typically invests at least 90% of its assets in common stocks and depositary receipts of companies involved in water conservation, purification, and related services. It holds approximately 37 securities, with top holdings generally including companies such as those in water utilities, equipment, and treatment technologies. Sector allocations center on industrials and utilities, reflecting the water resources theme. The expense ratio stands at 0.59%. The index undergoes quarterly rebalancing and annual reconstitution. PHO maintains a standard open-end structure with no leverage, providing straightforward exposure to the U.S. water sector.

Sprott Critical Materials ETF (SETM) Overview

Sprott Critical Materials ETF (SETM) is a passively managed exchange-traded fund designed to track the Nasdaq Sprott Critical Materials Index. The fund invests at least 80% of its assets in global securities of companies deriving significant revenue from mining, exploration, production, or supply of critical materials including uranium, copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, and rare earths. It typically holds 100–120 constituents, with top holdings spanning producers in these metals. Allocations concentrate in the materials sector across developed and emerging markets. The expense ratio is 0.65%. The index rebalances semi-annually. SETM employs a standard open-end structure without leverage, delivering pure-play access to the critical materials supply chain.

Industry and Thematic Backdrop

Both ETFs operate within resource-intensive themes shaped by long-term infrastructure needs and the global shift toward electrification. Water resources face steady demand from population growth, urbanization, and regulatory requirements for treatment and conservation. Critical materials experience pressure from expanding electricity generation, transmission, and storage requirements, alongside supply constraints in mining and refining. Macro drivers include capital expenditure on energy projects, trade policies affecting mineral sourcing, and technological advancements in batteries and renewables. Sector risks encompass commodity price volatility, regulatory changes in environmental standards, and geopolitical factors influencing mining operations and export controls. These dynamics support sustained interest in specialized thematic vehicles without reliance on short-term fluctuations.

Performance and Positioning Comparison

In recent market cycles, PHO has demonstrated relatively stable behavior tied to consistent utility and infrastructure spending patterns, with lower sensitivity to commodity swings. SETM has exhibited greater volatility aligned with metals price movements and energy transition investment flows during periods of policy support or demand surges. Relative positioning shows PHO offering defensive characteristics within a narrower U.S. focus, while SETM provides broader global diversification across cyclical materials that can amplify gains or losses during sector rotations. Earnings cycles of holdings in each fund reflect distinct drivers—regulatory and infrastructure spending for PHO versus commodity demand and production volumes for SETM—resulting in differentiated responses to interest rate environments and macroeconomic shifts.

AI Screener

Tickeron’s AI Screener is an AI-powered stock and ETF discovery tool that helps traders and investors filter the market based on technical patterns, fundamentals, trends, volatility, and AI-driven signals. Users can scan thousands of stocks and ETFs using customizable filters such as industry, market capitalization, technical indicators, price patterns, and performance metrics. The screener helps identify trade ideas, trending stocks, breakout candidates, and market opportunities more efficiently than manual screening. Investors comparing thematic ETFs like PHO and SETM may find the tool useful for uncovering additional ideas aligned with their research.

Tickeron AI Verdict

Based on observable structural factors, Tickeron’s AI would currently assign a modest probabilistic preference to Invesco Water Resources ETF (PHO) due to its lower expense ratio, concentrated yet stable U.S.-focused holdings, and defensive thematic alignment with enduring infrastructure demand. SETM offers compelling breadth in critical materials but carries a higher cost structure and greater exposure to cyclical commodity dynamics. Final selection depends on individual investor objectives regarding geographic scope, sector volatility tolerance, and allocation size within a diversified portfolio.

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

VS
PHO vs. SETM commentary
Sep 07, 2026

To compare these two companies we present long-term analysis, their fundamental ratings and make comparative short-term technical analysis which are presented below. The conclusion is PHO is a Hold and SETM is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
PHO has more net assets: 1.99B vs. SETM (619M). SETM has a higher annual dividend yield than PHO: SETM (17.306) vs PHO (0.542). PHO was incepted earlier than SETM: PHO (21 years) vs SETM (4 years). PHO (0.59) has a lower expense ratio than SETM (0.65). SETM has a higher turnover PHO (34.00) vs PHO (34.00).
PHOSETMPHO / SETM
Gain YTD0.54217.3063%
Net Assets1.99B619M322%
Total Expense Ratio0.590.6591%
Turnover34.0055.0062%
Yield0.571.3143%
Fund Existence21 years4 years-
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
PHOSETM
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
76%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
89%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
85%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
90%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
78%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
88%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
67%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
82%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
81%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
85%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
78%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
90%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
82%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 6 days ago
81%
Bearish Trend 6 days ago
80%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
88%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
90%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
90%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
PHO
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
SETM
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
MFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
LMVYX33.520.22
+0.66%
Lord Abbett Focused Small Cap Value I
SGGIX95.790.09
+0.09%
DWS Large Cap Focus Growth Inst
GCMAX40.120.03
+0.07%
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value A
MINFX43.66-0.20
-0.46%
MFS International Intrinsic Equity R2
FRVDX41.50-0.90
-2.12%
Fidelity Advisor Real Estate M

PHO and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, PHO has been closely correlated with XYL. These tickers have moved in lockstep 70% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if PHO jumps, then XYL could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To PHO
1D Price
Change %
PHO100%
-0.41%
XYL - PHO
70%
Closely correlated
-2.04%
MWA - PHO
69%
Closely correlated
+0.21%
FERG - PHO
66%
Loosely correlated
+2.32%
FELE - PHO
63%
Loosely correlated
+0.49%
GRC - PHO
54%
Loosely correlated
+0.32%
More