Are semiconductor ETFs expensive right now?
Updated September 11, 2026
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. Yes — measured against their own history, and by an unusually wide margin. On ETF Copilot's own daily calculation, as of September 11, 2026, SMH (VanEck Semiconductor ETF) trades at a look-through price-to-earnings ratio of 40.2 against a long-run median of 20.1 — more expensive than 95% of the 114 monthly readings since May 2017. All six funds on this page sit above their own long-run median. Inside the group SOXQ sits above 89% of its own record and PSI above 97% of its own. On forward earnings the picture changes, and that distinction is the whole argument — it is set out below.
How SMH's valuation compares with its own past
The line is SMH's trailing price-to-earnings ratio, one reading per month across 114 observations since May 2017 — every one of them our own calculation from the fund's holdings rather than a figure quoted from a provider.
Read it as a shape rather than a number: SMH sits at 40.2 against a median of 20.1 across 114 monthly readings, and 108 of those months were cheaper than today.
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 | 40.2 | 20.1 | 95%of 114 months | 25 | 0.6 | 10.0 |
| SOXXiShares Semiconductor ETF | 42.1 | 20.7 | 96%of 114 months | 33 | 0.4 | 9.7 |
| SOXQInvesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF | 41.5 | 24.4 | 89%of 64 months | 30 | 1.4 | 10.0 |
| XSDState Street SPDR S&P Semiconductor ETF | 36.9 | 28.7 | 89%of 114 months | 47 | 2.1 | 1.7 |
| PSIInvesco Semiconductors ETF | 49.1 | 19.9 | 97%of 114 months | 30 | 0.1 | 3.5 |
| FTXLFirst Trust Nasdaq Semiconductor ETF | 37.0 | 19.6 | 95%of 114 months | 33 | 0.3 | 8.1 |
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 of these funds 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 49.1 times earnings; the weakest on the quality of what it holds is XSD, scoring 1.7 out of 10. They are not the same fund, which is the point: price and company quality are two separate questions here, 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 1.4 on value and 10.0 on quality; SMH at 0.6 on value and 10.0 on quality.
Trailing earnings are the harshest lens available
Every figure above 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 40.2 to 25.7, SOXQ from 41.5 to 28.2 and PSI from 49.1 to 36.0.
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 33.0 times — still above its own median of 20.1.
What would have to be true for today's reading to hold
Stated as conditions, because a condition is checkable and because nothing here says what to do about any fund:
- The earnings have to arrive. SMH's multiple falls from 40.2 to 25.7 only if the forecast earnings are delivered in full. Delivered halfway, it is around 33.0 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 47 and scores 1.7. 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 0.5 for XSD to 1.0 for SMH, against 7.5 for VOO. The same funds produced the multiples above 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 93% of its own record, at 30.8 times against a median of 25.1, and VOO is more expensive than 84% of its own record, at 25.2 times against a median of 21.5. The same measurement, applied to the other themes people ask about: AI ETFs sit above 4% to 95% of their own records; defense ETFs sit above 25% to 89% 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 40.2 times against a median of 20.1, more expensive than 95% of its own 114 monthly readings, and it has been above that median in 24 of the last 24 months. Against the earnings expected next year the same fund is at 25.7 times, so the two lenses give different answers and the page above shows both.
Which semiconductor ETF is cheapest against its own history?
SOXQ, more expensive than 89% of its own 64 monthly readings — the lowest of the six funds here 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 XSD at 36.9 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 figure on this page 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 September 11, 2026. https://etf-copilot.com/learn/are-semiconductor-etfs-expensive
Method. The price-to-earnings ratio is trailing twelve-month, computed by ETF Copilot from each fund's own published holdings rather than quoted from a data provider: every holding's ratio, weighted by its weight in the fund, across the whole portfolio and not the top ten. The monthly series is rebuilt from the holdings as they stood at each date, so the line is comparable with itself. “More expensive than” is the share of that fund's own monthly readings sitting below today's. History lengths differ by fund, from 64 monthly readings to 114, because the funds launched at different times; each percentile is measured against that fund's own record and no other. 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. Figures are as of September 11, 2026 and are recalculated daily.
See SMH in full, and any of the funds we cover →
Nothing on this page is investment advice, a recommendation, or a forecast of returns.