Global X U.S. Natural Gas ETF (LNGX) holdings & weights
Per-holding contribution · concentration · sector skew — a deep read
Fund overview
This is a US-listed ETF from Global X. It tracks the Global X U.S. Natural Gas Index. Key facts — expense ratio 0.45%; net assets about $55M; inception Oct 28, 2025.
Fund details
Fund overview
This is a US-listed ETF from Global X. It tracks the Global X U.S. Natural Gas Index. Key facts — expense ratio 0.45%; net assets about $55M; inception Oct 28, 2025.
25 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 96.04%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
Weight and calculation basis
25 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 96.04%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
We have this ETF's holdings, but the prices for those particular listings are outside our quote coverage (currently Korea- and US-listed securities). So today's contribution and return are not computed — showing 0% would claim it did not move, which is a different statement. The holdings and weights below follow the calculation basis above.
Today's summary
Its top 10 holdings make up about 55.7% of the fund. The concentration index (HHI) is 475 — Low — evenly diversified, and the largest sector is Energy (83%). The higher the concentration, the more one stock or sector drives the whole ETF's return.
Structural health
A five-axis read on how this fund is built. It is not a return forecast or a recommendation, and a low score does not mean a bad fund — leveraged products score low by design. Each axis shows the figure behind it.
Concentration is below 1,500 (475), so no single holding dominates.
Energy alone is 83%. This is effectively a bet on that one industry — if the sector falls, diversification will not help.
0.45% a year is typical. Held ten years, roughly 4.5% goes to fees.
Net assets of $55M are small. Thin funds trade at wider spreads, and very small ones get closed or merged.
A plain 1x physical fund holding the shares themselves — no structural drift from how long you hold it.
Concentration and diversification
Structural health
A five-axis read on how this fund is built. It is not a return forecast or a recommendation, and a low score does not mean a bad fund — leveraged products score low by design. Each axis shows the figure behind it.
Concentration is below 1,500 (475), so no single holding dominates.
Energy alone is 83%. This is effectively a bet on that one industry — if the sector falls, diversification will not help.
0.45% a year is typical. Held ten years, roughly 4.5% goes to fees.
Net assets of $55M are small. Thin funds trade at wider spreads, and very small ones get closed or merged.
A plain 1x physical fund holding the shares themselves — no structural drift from how long you hold it.
Top 20 holdings
Weights are normalized to 100% of absolute exposures across analysed positions, including positions outside this top list. Cash, collateral and unverified assets are excluded. Contributions retain original signed NAV exposures; leverage is not applied twice.
Normalized to 100% of analysed positions
Weights are normalized to 100% of absolute exposures across analysed positions, including positions outside this top list. Cash, collateral and unverified assets are excluded. Contributions retain original signed NAV exposures; leverage is not applied twice.
| # | Holding | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | OvintivOVV | 7.82% |
| 2 | Expand EnergyEXE | 7.75% |
| 3 | EQTEQT | 7.57% |
| 4 | APAAPA | 5.09% |
| 5 | Cheniere EnergyLNG | 4.84% |
| 6 | Permian ResourcesPR | 4.83% |
| 7 | Antero ResourcesAR | 4.56% |
| 8 | EOG ResourcesEOG | 4.52% |
| 9 | Devon EnergyDVN | 4.36% |
| 10 | Occidental PetroleumOXY | 4.31% |
| 11 | Diamondback EnergyFANG | 4.07% |
| 12 | Range ResourcesRRC | 4.07% |
| 13 | Kinder MorganKMI | 4.06% |
| 14 | ONEOKOKE | 4.03% |
| 15 | SM EnergySM | 3.78% |
| 16 | The Williams CompaniesWMB | 3.69% |
| 17 | DT MidstreamDTM | 3.27% |
| 18 | National Fuel GasNFG | 3.10% |
| 19 | Antero MidstreamAM | 2.77% |
| 20 | Venture GlobalVG | 2.66% |
Holdings below 0.5% or outside the top list are folded into “Others” and omitted above.
Where the weight sits — sector mix
Listed equity weights summed by sector and normalized to 100%. Each band is one sector's share.
Industry breakdown
HHI sums the squared weights. The more it leans on a few names, the higher it goes — and the more the whole ETF moves with them.
How concentrated is it
Concentration (HHI) is low at 475, with the top 10 holdings at just 55.7% of equity weight. No single name can dominate the fund.
Good for damping single-stock risk — and equally, a big winner inside gets diluted.
HHI squares each weight and sums them: 10,000 means one stock is everything, and the more evenly spread the holdings, the closer it falls to zero.
Where the sector weight sits
By sector, Energy alone is 83% — whatever the fund is called, this is a bet on that industry.
Bad news for the sector moves the whole fund. Worth checking against anything else you hold in the same space.
Weights above sum the individually listed equities and normalize that equity total to 100%.
How much it overlaps others
It shares 43% of its holdings with OILT (12 names in common) — close to half the same companies.
Own both and the diversification is thinner than it looks.
What it is made of
The fund holds 36 positions in total; this page lists the largest 25 and folds the rest into "Others".
The expense ratio is 0.45% a year. Funds tracking the same index tend to perform alike, which makes the fee one of the few things that reliably separates them over time.
This page is not investment advice. Investment decisions and responsibility are your own.
LNGX comments
Leave a one-line take on Global X U.S. Natural Gas ETF. No account — just a nickname and a code to delete it later.
Loading…
Similar ETFs
Picked by how much their actual holdings overlap. The higher the overlap, the less diversification you get from owning both.