Are semiconductor ETFs expensive right now?
Updated October 28, 2026
Are semiconductor ETFs expensive today? Yes, measured against their own history — though not at an extreme. On ETF Copilot's own daily calculation, as of October 28, 2026, SMH (VanEck Semiconductor ETF) trades at a look-through price-to-earnings ratio of 31.2 against a long-run median of 27.1 — more expensive than 63% of its last 9 years.
Semiconductor ETFs are the most cyclical group on this site: their multiples swing with the chip cycle, so the same fund can read cheap and expensive within one year, and only its own history says which.
How SMH's valuation compares with its own past
All six funds, and where each sits in its own range
| Fund | P/E now | Own median | More expensive than | Holdings | Value score | Quality score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMHVanEck Semiconductor ETF | 31.2 | 27.1 | 63%of 9 years | 25 | 3.0 | 10.0 |
| SOXXiShares Semiconductor ETF | 33.0 | 25.8 | 74%of 9 years | 32 | 1.8 | 9.4 |
| SOXQInvesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF | 34.8 | 30.9 | 60%of 5 years | 30 | 3.8 | 9.7 |
| XSDState Street SPDR S&P Semiconductor ETF | 34.6 | 28.6 | 73%of 9 years | 46 | 2.6 | 1.2 |
| PSIInvesco Semiconductors ETF | 43.1 | 24.4 | 96%of 9 years | 30 | 0.2 | 3.5 |
| FTXLFirst Trust Nasdaq Semiconductor ETF | 32.3 | 23.2 | 82%of 9 years | 37 | 1.4 | 8.7 |
Value, quality and risk scores are ETF Copilot's own 0–10 measures computed across every fund we cover. Higher is better on all three, so a low value score means expensive. Where a column is highlighted, amber marks the least favourable reading of the group and green the most favourable.
The six funds are not interchangeable
The difference is structural rather than a matter of manager skill. Some semiconductor ETFs cap the number of companies they hold and weight towards the largest and most profitable; others equal-weight a much wider list and reach a long way down the industry, into smaller and less profitable names. The label on the front is the same either way.
The most expensive of the six is PSI at 43.1 times earnings; the weakest on the quality of what it holds is XSD, scoring 1.2 out of 10. They are not the same fund, which is the point: price and company quality are two separate questions for semiconductor ETFs, and a fund can be at the wrong end of either one on its own.
At the other end, two of the six are cheaper than the group's midpoint on our value score without also sitting below it on company quality: SOXQ at 3.8 on value and 9.7 on quality; SMH at 3.0 on value and 10.0 on quality.
Trailing earnings are the harshest lens available
Every P/E in this comparison of six semiconductor ETFs uses earnings already reported. On the earnings these companies are expected to make next year, the same funds carry far less stretched multiples: SMH from 31.2 to 20.5, PSI from 43.1 to 31.1 and SOXQ from 34.8 to 23.2.
So the answer depends almost entirely on whether the earnings growth now priced in actually arrives. On what these companies have already earned, the funds are expensive. On what they are expected to earn, they are closer to ordinary, and if the forecasts land halfway SMH sits at about 25.9 times — below its own median of 27.1.
What would have to be true for today's reading to hold
Stated as conditions, because a condition is checkable and because no ETF Copilot figure says what to do about any fund:
- The earnings have to arrive. SMH's multiple falls from 31.2 to 20.5 only if the forecast earnings are delivered in full. Delivered halfway, it is around 25.9 times.
- The way each fund is built has to keep mattering. SMH holds 25 companies and scores 10.0 out of 10 on company quality; XSD spreads across 46 and scores 1.2. Those are two different bets wearing one label.
- The ride has to be tolerable. Our risk score runs 0 to 10, where 10 is the steadiest fund in the universe we cover. Across this group it runs from 0.4 for PSI to 0.7 for SMH, against 6.9 for VOO. The same funds produced both the multiples and those scores.
How this compares with the wider market
Semiconductor ETFs are not the only funds trading away from their own past. QQQ is more expensive than 43% of its own record, at 27.9 times against a median of 30.2, and VOO is more expensive than 63% of its own record, at 24.7 times against a median of 22.6. The same measurement, applied to the other themes people ask about: AI ETFs sit above 0% to 57% of their own records; defense ETFs sit above 21% to 80% of their own records; data center and AI power ETFs sit below their own long-run multiples.
For which funds actually hold this exposure, rather than what they cost, see the look-through hub, which lists every fund with meaningful exposure to the theme and how much of each fund it is.
Is SMH expensive right now?
Against its own record, yes on trailing earnings: SMH trades at 31.2 times against a median of 27.1, more expensive than 63% of its own last 9 years, and it has been above that median for all of the last 2 years. Against the earnings expected next year the same fund is at 20.5 times, so the two lenses give different answers and this comparison of semiconductor ETFs shows both.
Which semiconductor ETF is cheapest against its own history?
SOXQ, more expensive than 60% of its own last 5 years — the lowest of the six semiconductor ETFs compared, relative to its own past. That is a different question from which fund is cheapest outright: on price alone the lowest multiple of the group is SMH at 31.2 times. A fund can carry the lowest multiple in its group and still be expensive for itself.
Why do two semiconductor ETFs show different P/E ratios?
Because two semiconductor ETFs hold different companies in different proportions. A fund's price-to-earnings ratio is the weighted average of the ratios of what it holds, so a fund capped at the largest and most profitable names produces a different figure from one that equal-weights a much wider list. Providers also differ on trailing versus forward earnings, on how loss-making companies are handled, and on the date of the holdings file. Every ETF Copilot figure is computed the same way for every fund, from each fund's own published holdings.
Does a high P/E mean these funds will fall?
No. The ratio measures price against earnings already reported. It carries no information about what happens next, and reading a forecast into a measurement is the most common mistake made with it. What it does tell you is where a fund sits relative to what buyers have been willing to pay for the same fund in the past, which is a fact about the past and the present only.
Cite this
ETF Copilot, “Semiconductor ETFs measured against their own price-to-earnings history”, figures as of October 28, 2026. https://etf-copilot.com/learn/are-semiconductor-etfs-expensive
Method. The trailing price-to-earnings ratio is computed by ETF Copilot from each fund's published holdings — every holding's ratio, weighted by its share of the fund — not quoted from a data provider. The monthly history uses the holdings held at each date, so the line is comparable with itself. “More expensive than” is the share of the fund's own history that sat below today's reading. Value, quality and risk are our own scores, where higher is better. Recalculated daily.
See SMH in full, and any of the funds we cover →
Sources: iShares SOXX fund page, State Street XSD fund page, Nasdaq PHLX Semiconductor index
Nothing on this page is investment advice, a recommendation, or a forecast of returns.