Best ASX green metals ETFs 2026: WIRE, XMET, GMTL and ACDC compared

There are four green metals ETFs on the ASX: WIRE, XMET, GMTL, and ACDC. They all give exposure to the electrification minerals boom — copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt — but they do so in very different ways. One holds only copper miners. One focuses on the whole battery supply chain including manufacturers. One has only $10 million in assets under management. And one returned 83.9% over the past year while another returned 61.8%.

This guide compares all four using live data from issuer pages (as at 16 July 2026) so you can decide which one actually suits your investment goals.

For background on why these minerals matter, see our Australia's critical minerals explained piece. This article is the "which ETF do I buy?" answer.

The four ETFs at a glance

All figures sourced from issuer fund pages as at 16 July 2026.

ETF	Issuer	Fee (p.a.)	AUM	Holdings	China exposure	1-yr return	Best for
WIRE	Global X	0.65%	$768M	44	Low (diversified global)	61.8%	Pure copper play
XMET	Betashares	0.69%	$115M	43	3.6%	83.9%	Broad basket, low China risk
ACDC	Global X	0.69%	$633M	50+	Moderate	62.2%*	Full battery supply chain
GMTL	Global X	0.69%	$10.4M	50+	~20–25%	N/A	Rare earth exposure

*ACDC 12-month return as at 9 July 2026 per issuer data. GMTL 12-month return not publicly disclosed on issuer page at time of writing.

WIRE and ACDC are by far the largest and most established funds. XMET delivered the strongest recent returns. GMTL's tiny AUM is a meaningful concern.

WIRE — the pure copper play

ASX: WIRE | Global X Copper Miners ETF | Fee: 0.65% | AUM: $768M

WIRE is the most straightforward of the four. It tracks the Solactive Global Copper Miners Total Return Index, holding 44 global copper mining companies. Its largest positions as at 16 July 2026 are BHP (5.6%), Teck Resources (5.3%), Antofagasta (5.2%), Southern Copper (5.1%), and First Quantum (5.1%).

The fund returned 61.8% over the past 12 months — a strong result driven by copper prices hitting all-time highs as supply constraints and electrification demand collided. At $768 million in AUM it is by far the most liquid of the four, and at 0.65% it is marginally the cheapest.

The limitation of WIRE is precisely its focus. If you believe copper is the key metal for electrification and you want pure exposure to its price cycle, WIRE is the clearest expression of that thesis. But if you want lithium, nickel, cobalt, or rare earth exposure alongside copper, WIRE gives you none of it.

XMET — the broad basket with minimal China exposure

ASX: XMET | Betashares Energy Transition Metals ETF | Fee: 0.69% | AUM: $115M

XMET tracks the Nasdaq Sprott Energy Transition Materials Select Index and holds 43 companies across copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, manganese, silver, and rare earth elements. It returned 83.9% over the past 12 months — the best of the four ETFs in this comparison by a significant margin.

Two things make XMET stand apart from the other broad-basket option (GMTL):

1. Low China exposure. XMET's geographic breakdown as at 16 July 2026 shows Australia at 25.9%, Canada 18.3%, Chile 15.1%, the US 13.6%, and China at just 3.6%. For investors concerned about geopolitical risk in a critical minerals portfolio, this is a meaningful differentiator. GMTL's China exposure is roughly 20–25%.

2. Meaningful AUM. At $115 million, XMET is eleven times larger than GMTL. That matters for liquidity and for the risk that a small fund is wound up.

The top holdings as at July 2026 are BHP (6.3%), Pilbara Minerals (6.1%), Lynas Rare Earths (5.9%), First Quantum Minerals (5.6%), and Anglo American (5.6%). The Australian tilt — with PLS and Lynas as top holdings — reflects the fact that Australia genuinely dominates production of several of these minerals.

ACDC — the battery supply chain play

ASX: ACDC | Global X Battery Tech & Lithium ETF | Fee: 0.69% | AUM: $633M

ACDC is the oldest of the four ETFs (launched August 2018) and the second-largest by AUM. It tracks the Solactive Battery Value-Chain Index, which captures companies across the entire lithium battery supply chain — not just miners.

This is the critical distinction. While WIRE, XMET, and GMTL all hold mining companies, ACDC's top holdings include battery manufacturers (Panasonic, NGK Corp), energy storage companies (Fluence Energy, SolarEdge), component suppliers (TDK Corp, Sumitomo Electric), EV companies (Tesla, BYD), and only then lithium miners.

The result is a fund that behaves differently from the others:

In a mining price cycle, ACDC does not move as directly as WIRE or XMET, because its manufacturers and tech companies are less leveraged to spot metal prices
In a battery technology adoption cycle, ACDC captures gains that a pure-miner ETF would miss
ACDC is more exposed to the technology risk of the battery sector — if a competitor technology disrupts lithium batteries, it hits both the miners and the manufacturers in ACDC's portfolio

The 12-month return of approximately 62.2% is strong, though notably below XMET's 83.9%. The $633 million AUM makes it one of the largest thematic ETFs on the ASX.

If you believe the electrification story is about the whole battery economy — not just digging the minerals — ACDC is the only ASX ETF that captures that.

GMTL — rare earth exposure, but small

ASX: GMTL | Global X Rare Earth and Critical Metals ETF | Fee: 0.69% | AUM: $10.4M

GMTL tracks the BITA Rare Earth and Critical Metals Index and holds 50+ companies in copper, rare earth elements, aluminium, lithium, cobalt, nickel, and other strategic materials. Top holdings as at July 2026 are Freeport-McMoRan (8.6%), Teck Resources (8.1%), First Quantum (5.9%), Boliden (5.1%), and Antofagasta (4.1%).

The fund's exposure to rare earth elements (beyond the four core minerals covered by XMET and WIRE) is the main differentiator. If rare earths — used in magnets for EV motors and wind turbines — are a specific thesis you want exposure to, GMTL is the only one of the four that includes them directly.

The significant concern is AUM of $10.4 million. This is tiny for an ETF. It means:

The bid-ask spread on the ASX is likely to be wider than for larger funds, increasing trading costs
The fund is a candidate for closure if it cannot grow — and if closed, investors would receive the underlying assets but need to reinvest elsewhere
Comparing GMTL's fee to XMET's fee at the same 0.69% makes GMTL a harder sell, given XMET is eleven times larger, has delivered better documented recent returns, and has much lower China exposure

GMTL is not uninvestable, but it requires eyes-open awareness of its scale.

Which one should I choose?

Here is a direct decision framework based on what you are actually trying to achieve:

"I want to bet on copper specifically." → WIRE. It is the largest, most liquid, cheapest, and most directly tied to the copper price cycle. Nothing else on the ASX comes close for pure copper exposure.
"I want broad exposure to green metals with minimal geopolitical risk." → XMET. Lowest China exposure (3.6%), 43 holdings across eight minerals, the best 12-month return of the four, and $115M AUM. This is the most natural default for a long-term position in the electrification theme.
"I want the whole battery economy, not just the miners." → ACDC. The only ETF here that holds battery manufacturers, energy storage companies, and EV producers alongside miners. Better insulated against a single commodity price crash; more exposed to technology disruption.
"I specifically want rare earth exposure." → GMTL — but go in knowing the fund is tiny and the China exposure is higher. Pair it with XMET if rare earths are one part of a broader thesis rather than the whole bet.
"Can I hold more than one?" Yes. WIRE + XMET gives you a copper tilt alongside a broad green metals basket. XMET + ACDC combines the miner story with the supply-chain story. There is some overlap (both own copper and lithium miners), but the exposure profiles are meaningfully different.

If you are using a battery system at home, the same minerals in these ETFs power your setup — our Solar Battery ROI Calculator and Battery Rebate Calculator show the home-energy side of the electrification story in dollar terms.

The cyclicality warning

These are not set-and-forget ETFs. All four are tied to commodity-linked mining companies, and commodity prices move in cycles — sometimes severe ones.

Lithium is the most instructive recent example. Between 2021 and 2022, lithium prices surged more than 10x, driving enormous gains in ETFs with lithium exposure. By 2023, a supply glut had crashed prices by more than 80% from their peak. ETFs that returned 150%+ in 2022 gave much of it back in 2023.

The 1-year figures in this article look impressive. They reflect a strong recovery in copper and lithium prices. They do not guarantee anything about the next 12 months. Anyone investing in this space needs to understand:

These are not low-volatility dividend-paying ETFs
Exposure should be sized as part of a diversified portfolio, not as a core holding
The long-term demand story for green metals is real, but the path will include significant price cycles

Frequently asked questions

1. What is the largest green metals ETF on the ASX? WIRE (Global X Copper Miners ETF) is the largest with approximately $768 million in AUM as at July 2026, followed by ACDC ($633M), XMET ($115M), and GMTL ($10.4M).

2. What is the difference between XMET and GMTL? Both are broad critical minerals ETFs with similar fees (0.69% each). The key differences: XMET is eleven times larger in AUM ($115M vs $10.4M), has much lower China exposure (3.6% vs ~20–25%), and delivered a documented 83.9% return over 12 months. GMTL specifically includes rare earth elements which XMET's index also covers. For most investors, XMET is the more practical choice; GMTL's tiny size is a real risk.

3. Is WIRE a good ETF for Australian investors? WIRE provides targeted exposure to global copper miners through 44 holdings at 0.65% per annum — the cheapest of the four. With $768 million in AUM it is the most liquid. It returned 61.8% in the 12 months to July 2026. The limitation is it holds only copper — no lithium, nickel, cobalt, or rare earths.

4. What does ACDC ETF actually hold? ACDC tracks the Solactive Battery Value-Chain Index and holds companies across the entire lithium battery supply chain: battery manufacturers (Panasonic, NGK), energy storage companies (SolarEdge, Fluence Energy), component makers (TDK, Sumitomo), EV companies, and lithium miners. It is not a pure-play mining ETF and behaves differently from WIRE and XMET as a result.

5. Is it worth holding green metals ETFs inside super? Green metals ETFs are high-volatility, commodity-linked holdings. Within super, they can make sense as a satellite position (5–15% of a diversified portfolio) if you have a long time horizon and understand the commodity cycle. They are less appropriate as a core super holding, particularly for investors approaching retirement. Consider the CGT discount advantage of long-term holdings inside super.

6. What are the main risks of green metals ETFs? Commodity price cyclicality is the largest risk — prices can fall 50–80% from peak in a supply surplus. Other risks include currency exposure (most holdings are priced in USD), geopolitical risk in mining jurisdictions, technological substitution (battery chemistry changes could shift mineral demand), and fund closure risk for small ETFs like GMTL.

7. Is GMTL safe to invest in given its tiny AUM? GMTL is not unsafe, but its $10.4 million AUM is unusually small for an ETF and warrants caution. Small ETFs can be wound up if they cannot attract sufficient scale — typically below $30–50 million is considered at risk. If closed, investors receive the underlying net asset value, but must reinvest elsewhere and may face tax consequences. Monitor GMTL's AUM growth before making a large allocation.

Sources

Betashares XMET fund page — AUM, fee, holdings, performance (as at 16 July 2026)
Global X GMTL fund page — AUM, fee, holdings (as at 16 July 2026)
Global X WIRE fund page — AUM, fee, holdings, performance (as at 16 July 2026)
Global X ACDC fund page — AUM, fee, holdings (as at 16 July 2026)
Selfwealth — XMET vs GMTL head-to-head

This article is for general information only and does not constitute financial, tax or legal advice. ETF data is sourced from issuer pages as at 16 July 2026 and is subject to change. AUM, performance, and fees should be verified at the relevant issuer's website before investing. Consult a licensed financial adviser before making investment decisions.