The comparison at a glance
| BOTZ | KOID | ROBO | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Industrial robotics & AI | Humanoid robotics (pure-play) | Broad robotics/automation |
| Expense ratio | 0.68% | 0.79% gross / 0.69% net | 0.95% |
| Holdings | 61 | 58 | 74-80 (equal-weight) |
| AUM | ~$3.5-3.6B | ~$333M | ~$2.15B |
| Inception | Sept 2016 | 2025 | Oct 2013 |
| Top 10 concentration | ~60% of portfolio | Concentrated, humanoid-specific | ~17% of portfolio |
| Top holdings | NVIDIA (~9-11%), ABB (~9%), Keyence (~9%), FANUC | Humanoid component & platform makers | Diversified across value chain |
| 2026 YTD (late July) | -3.9% | No live public return history yet | +14.5% |
| 5-year annualized volatility | 22.7% | N/A (too new) | 20.3% |
Why the performance gap?
ROBO's diversified, equal-weight structure spread risk across more of the value chain in 2026, while BOTZ's concentration in a handful of large-cap names — its top 10 holdings alone make up roughly 60% of the portfolio, versus just 17% for ROBO's top 10 — meant it moved more with those specific stocks' fortunes. That concentration cuts both ways: BOTZ has historically posted a stronger long-run track record when its top holdings (NVIDIA, ABB, Keyence, FANUC) are performing well, but it also carries higher volatility (22.7% annualized over 5 years, versus ROBO's 20.3%) and a deeper maximum drawdown (-55.54% peak-to-trough at its worst, versus -43.65% for ROBO). KOID, as a genuinely new pure-play fund, doesn't have a live public return history long enough for meaningful comparison yet — its numbers so far reflect a narrow, high-conviction bet on humanoid robotics specifically rather than the broader automation trade that BOTZ and ROBO represent.
Which one fits which investor?
Want lower cost and can tolerate concentration risk: BOTZ's 0.68% expense ratio is the cheapest of the three, but a larger share of returns depends on a small number of large-cap holdings — NVIDIA, ABB, and Keyence alone account for roughly a quarter to a third of the fund.
Want direct, undiluted exposure to humanoid robotics specifically: KOID offers the purest bet on that theme, at the cost of a short track record, lower liquidity (its AUM is roughly 1/10th of BOTZ's), and likely higher volatility once enough trading history exists to measure it properly.
Want the broadest diversification across the value chain: ROBO's equal-weight approach across 74-80 holdings spreads company-specific risk furthest, for the highest expense ratio of the three (0.95%) — but that diversification is exactly what drove its stronger 2026 performance and lower drawdown risk.
The bottom line
None of these funds is a bet on a single company — each is a bet on how fast and how broadly the robotics buildout plays out, and how concentrated you want that bet to be. Cost, concentration, and how "pure-play" the humanoid theme needs to be are the three axes that actually separate them. KOID is the only one of the three offering direct, undiluted humanoid-robot exposure — everything else is a bet on the broader automation and industrial-AI category, with humanoid robotics as just one contributing theme among many.
Frequently asked questions
Is BOTZ or ROBO the better robotics ETF? Neither is universally "better" — BOTZ is cheaper (0.68% vs 0.95%) and more concentrated in large-cap names like NVIDIA and ABB, while ROBO is more diversified (74-80 holdings vs BOTZ's 61) and posted stronger 2026 year-to-date returns with lower volatility. The right choice depends on whether you want lower cost and higher concentration risk, or broader diversification at a higher expense ratio.
What makes KOID different from BOTZ and ROBO? KOID is a pure-play humanoid robotics fund — its holdings are specifically selected for direct exposure to humanoid robot manufacturers and component suppliers, whereas BOTZ and ROBO both hold a broader mix of industrial automation, surgical robotics, and general AI companies where humanoid robotics is just one contributing theme.
Why has ROBO outperformed BOTZ in 2026? ROBO's equal-weight structure across a much larger number of holdings (74-80 versus BOTZ's 61) meant no single stock's decline could drag down the whole fund. BOTZ's top 10 holdings make up roughly 60% of its portfolio, so when large concentrated positions like NVIDIA underperformed, the effect on BOTZ's overall return was much larger than the equivalent effect on ROBO.
Related reading
For the broader context behind these numbers: how Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley size the humanoid robot market, and what the Shiller CAPE ratio says about AI-era valuations.