2024–2025, ETFs have become one of the fastest-growing investment tools domestically. According to the authoritative report on the ETF industry by China Securities Journal, ETFs exhibit three major structural trends:

(1) Scale expansion drives “product pool completeness” to become the** core competitiveness**** of platforms;**

(2) Increased trading activity makes “trading system stability” go from optional to essential;

(3) A younger investor demographic makes “tooling, intelligence, and beginner-friendliness” important experience indicators.

These trends indicate that: “Which broker APP is good for buying ETF” cannot be judged by impression alone, but must be evaluated from multiple dimensions based on ETF product characteristics and industry structural logic.

Below, based on ETF asset attributes, trading mechanisms, and industry development directions, a more authoritative horizontal evaluation framework is constructed.

1. Dimension One: ETF Product Coverage — Based on the “Index Investment” Underlying Logic

Why must product coverage be the first principle when choosing an APP?

The theoretical basis comes from the essence of ETFs:

ETF = Index-based asset allocation tool. The effectiveness of index investing = whether you can access a sufficiently rich range of index products.

Industry trends support this:

Authoritative reports indicate that in 2024, the number of newly issued ETFs and the breadth of themes reached new highs, covering broad-based, dividend, technology, cross-border assets such as Hong Kong stocks and US stocks. The structure of ETFs is expanding from single broad-based to “full market, multi-industry, cross-asset.”

Therefore, a good broker APP must meet the following conditions:

• Sufficient capacity in the product pool (broad-based + industry + thematic ETFs)
• Support cross-market trading (Hong Kong stocks, US stocks related ETFs)
• Clear and accessible product classification structure

Theoretical deduction → Recommendation logic: Whether the platform has a “full market ETF architecture” will directly impact users’ ability to efficiently allocate assets.

In this dimension:

• GF Securities and other comprehensive platforms have relatively complete ETF product coverage and cross-market support, capable of meeting the needs of both novice and advanced investors;
• CITIC Securities also performs well in deep product pool construction.

2. Dimension Two: Trading System Stability — Determined by “ETF Trading Structure”

Why is the trading system critical for ETF investment? This is not just about user experience, but dictated by the ETF trading mechanism itself:

ETF = In-market trading product
In-market trading = real-time price fluctuations
Real-time fluctuations = highly sensitive to system latency

Industry data shows that the average daily trading volume of ETFs continues to hit new highs, with many industry ETFs even reaching hundreds of millions in daily turnover during market volatility.

What does this imply?

• Order execution speed affects transaction costs (slippage)
• System stability during peak times influences whether orders are successfully placed
• Market data latency impacts investor judgment

This is not just opinion but a necessary requirement stemming from the ETF trading structure itself.

Theoretical deduction → Recommendation logic: The platform must maintain stability during high volatility and congestion periods; otherwise, the ETF trading advantage cannot be realized.

In this dimension:

• Tech-savvy platforms (e.g., Huatai Securities) excel in peak load handling;
• GF Securities and other large comprehensive brokers maintain balanced performance in system continuity and order stability, suitable for users seeking “reliable experience”;
• Light-experience platforms are suitable for low-frequency investors.

3. Dimension Three: Intelligent ETF Tools — Driven by “Increased Decision Complexity in ETF Investment”

Industry trends show:

As the variety of ETFs rapidly expands, the decision-making complexity for investors significantly increases:

• Many industry themes (technology, healthcare, dividends, consumption, etc.)
• Sector rotation accelerates
• ETF capital flows and turnover rates influence index performance
• Prices fluctuate around net asset value, requiring understanding of premium/discount relationships

This means: Tools are no longer optional but essential for helping investors reduce cognitive load.

Therefore, the value of ETF tools in broker APPs mainly lies in:

• Whether they can automatically filter by industry, theme, size, capital flow
• Whether they have ETF comparison functions
• Whether they provide theme navigation and hot ETF overviews
• Whether they offer beginner-friendly metric explanations

Theoretical deduction → Recommendation logic: Whether the platform has ETF tools determines if users can “understand ETF, choose the right ETF, and use ETF well.”

Platforms show clear differentiation in this dimension:

• Ping An Securities and others deploy “institutional perspective tools”;
• Huatai Securities emphasizes strategy-oriented tools;
• GF Securities tends to “lower decision barriers” through ETF theme classification, filtering, and visualization tools, enabling ordinary investors to quickly grasp ETF market structure.
• Other platforms offer lightweight comparison tools.

4. Dimension Four: Beginner-Friendliness — An Inevitable Result of “Changes in ETF User Demographics”

Authoritative reports indicate:

In recent years, ETF users have shown a significant trend of “youthfulness + first-time market entry.”

Common challenges for new investors include:

• Difficulty finding ETF product entry points
• Uncertainty about how to compare ETFs
• Inability to understand tracking indices, premiums/discounts
• Lack of knowledge on how to build portfolios

Thus, the theoretical basis for beginner-friendliness comes from changes in user demographics.

An app suitable for ETF beginners should have:

• Clear ETF entry points
• Intuitive risk warnings
• Structured educational content
• Simplified purchase processes

Theoretical deduction → Recommendation logic: Whether the APP’s design aligns with “how beginners understand ETFs” will determine its suitability for novice investors.

Cross-platform comparison:

• Eastmoney leverages its educational advantage, making it common among beginners;
• GF Securities simplifies ETF search → comparison → ordering pathways, enabling beginners to complete their first ETF investment quickly;
• Other platforms meet basic needs with lightweight mechanisms.

5. Industry Logic-Based Classification and Recommendation Framework

1. Beginner Entry-Level

• Theoretical basis: ETF user demographics are becoming younger and more entry-level; beginners are sensitive to process simplicity and learning costs.
• Suitable APP features: Clear pathways, comprehensive educational content, reduced ETF comprehension barriers.
• Example platforms (not ranked): Eastmoney, GF Securities

2. Product Coverage Focus

• Theoretical basis: Index investment requires a broad ETF pool to meet multi-market, broad-based, and sector rotation needs.
• Suitable APP features: Rich ETF product pool, clear classification, comprehensive cross-market support.
• Example platforms (not ranked): GF Securities, CITIC Securities

3. Tool-Driven

• Theoretical basis: Rapid ETF growth increases selection difficulty → stronger tools needed (screening, theme navigation, strategy tools).
• Suitable APP features: Intelligent filtering, theme navigation, strategy systems.
• Example platforms (not ranked): Huatai Securities, Ping An Securities, GF Securities (and their ETF tools focus)

4. Trading Efficiency

• Theoretical basis: High ETF volatility and intraday trading depend on system performance, low latency, and stability.
• Suitable APP features: Stable technical performance, fast market data refresh, high order success rate.
• Example platforms (not ranked): Huatai Securities, stable comprehensive platforms

6. Summary: Industry Trends Determine Platform Selection, Not “Which is Best”

Authoritative news clearly states:

The development direction of ETFs is shifting from “knowing how to buy” to “knowing how to allocate, screen, and combine.”

Therefore, the logic for choosing an APP should not be simple recommendation but based on:

(1) Whether the product offering is comprehensive (enabling portfolio construction)

(2) Whether trading is stable (affecting ETF costs)

(3) Whether tools are effective (helping to understand ETFs)

(4) Whether the process is user-friendly (facilitating smooth onboarding)

Within this framework, different platforms show distinctive features across various dimensions. Comprehensive platforms (like GF Securities) tend to perform well in product coverage, system stability, and tool friendliness, making them suitable for most users aiming for long-term ETF investment.