Fund index
AMOM
22 articles on this site analyse AMOM — 4 of them head-on.
Measured concentration
as of 2026-04-30AMOM reports 51 positions, but the weights make it behave like about 30.2 equally weighted ones. Computed by this site from the fund's SEC Form N-PORT filing — see what this measure does not tell you and the full table.
The same filing says what kind of price those positions carry: 100% of AMOM is held at a quoted market price, across 3 issuer countries . Comparisons across every fund are in the valuation table, and what a low share does and does not mean is worth reading before drawing a conclusion from it.
Every filing since 2020
25Between 2020-04-30 and 2026-04-30, AMOM went from behaving like 28.8 equally weighted positions to 30.2 — 5% more, while its top ten went from 45.15% to 44.36% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.
| Period | Holdings | Effective | Top 10 | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-30 | 51 | 30.2 | 44.36% | 8.71% |
| 2026-01-31 | 51 | 30.4 | 44.73% | 8.77% |
| 2025-10-31 | 51 | 30.2 | 46.11% | 9.27% |
| 2025-07-31 | 51 | 29.4 | 45.06% | 10.05% |
| 2025-04-30 | 51 | 30.5 | 46.69% | 8.72% |
| 2025-01-31 | 51 | 31.2 | 43.56% | 7.72% |
| 2024-10-31 | 51 | 25.8 | 50.8% | 9.94% |
| 2024-07-31 | 51 | 29.5 | 45.16% | 8.7% |
| 2024-04-30 | 51 | 29.2 | 46.52% | 9.11% |
| 2024-01-31 | 51 | 27.3 | 50.48% | 9.02% |
| 2023-10-31 | 51 | 24.6 | 51.62% | 8.36% |
| 2023-07-31 | 51 | 25.9 | 49.94% | 7.99% |
| 2023-04-28 | 51 | 33 | 42.02% | 8.01% |
| 2023-01-31 | 51 | 30.8 | 44.43% | 7.39% |
| 2022-10-31 | 51 | 34.9 | 38.78% | 7.76% |
| 2022-07-29 | 51 | 32.7 | 42.07% | 7.78% |
| 2022-04-29 | 51 | 38.2 | 36.34% | 7.66% |
| 2022-01-31 | 51 | 29.6 | 48.31% | 8.33% |
| 2021-10-29 | 51 | 36.9 | 35.89% | 7.57% |
| 2021-07-30 | 51 | 45.8 | 30.34% | 3.85% |
| 2021-04-30 | 51 | 35.6 | 37.23% | 8.61% |
| 2021-01-29 | 51 | 31.2 | 43.21% | 7.97% |
| 2020-10-30 | 51 | 32.4 | 41.58% | 7.99% |
| 2020-07-31 | 52 | 33 | 40.28% | 9.3% |
| 2020-04-30 | 49 | 28.8 | 45.15% | 8.49% |
One row per filed reporting period, newest first, read from EDGAR. Quarterly because that is the public filing cadence. Rows marked * are published but held out of the comparison above; the methodology page says when and why.
Most often compared against
4Measures applied to it
8All articles
22-
Absolute Momentum as a Risk Switch: What Time-Series Trend Following Does That Buy-and-Hold Can't
Absolute (time-series) momentum uses an asset's own past return as a binary risk switch: hold when the trend is positive, step aside when it turns negative....
-
Momentum Crashes: The Rare, Violent Drawdowns Hiding Inside MTUM
MTUM has compounded at 16.3% over ten years, but its risk is negatively skewed: the danger sits in rare, sharp reversals rather than in day-to-day...
-
Momentum Crashes, Explained: Why the Most Crowded Trades Unwind Fastest
Momentum earns a long-run premium but carries deep negative skew: the strategy's worst days cluster together and arrive precisely when a crowded trade...
-
QRFT vs AMOM: AI-Driven Quality vs AI-Driven Momentum — A Head-to-Head Read
QRFT and AMOM share an issuer, an inception date, and an identical 0.75% expense ratio — so this is a clean test of factor tilt, not cost or structure. Over...
-
12 Months of Live AI-Quant ETFs vs the S&P 500 — Honest Data Review
Across the full live track record (5Y through May 2026), none of the five AI-quant or rules-based factor ETFs in this review beat SPY's 13.8% CAGR. The...
-
FCTR vs LRGF: Where AI Actually Changes the Multi-Factor Loading
LRGF has returned 13.5% annualized over the past five years; FCTR has returned 3.0%. A 10.5-percentage-point gap that wide is structural, not noise. FCTR's...
-
QRFT Explained: AI-Driven Multi-Factor — Holdings, Fees, and Live Track Record
Over the past five years, the rules-based iShares U.S. Equity Factor ETF (LRGF) returned 13.5% annualized; the AI-enhanced QRAFT U.S. Large Cap ETF (QRFT)...
-
AIEQ vs ROBO: AI-Managed vs AI-Themed — Two Different Bets in the Same Wrapper
AIEQ and ROBO both wear "AI" branding, but they are entirely different products: AIEQ uses an AI system as the process for picking US equities; ROBO is a...
-
DBMF Deep Dive: How AI-Managed Futures Pick Trends Without Forecasting
DBMF doesn't forecast markets. It reverse-engineers the factor positioning of the top managed-futures hedge funds from their reported returns and replicates...
-
AMOM Explained: How AI Weights Momentum Differently from MTUM
MTUM is a $24B rules-based momentum factor ETF charging 0.15%. AMOM is a $30M AI-overlay product charging 0.75%. The construction philosophies are...
-
AIEQ Review: 7 Years of Live AI-Managed ETF — What Actually Worked
After more than eight years of live trading, AIEQ has trailed SPY by roughly 700 basis points per year on a 5Y annualized basis, while running 5.3 points...
-
The Ultimate 2026 Hybrid Portfolio: How to Mix Classic ETFs with AI Quant
The hybrid framework — a low-cost passive core plus a small AI-quant satellite — only earns its keep when the satellite delivers exposure the core does not....
-
VUG vs. TTAI: Large-Cap Growth vs. AI-Based Tactical Theme Rotation
VUG and TTAI are not the matchup the legacy title suggests. TTAI today is the Abacus FCF International Leaders ETF — a free-cash-flow-weighted international...
-
GLD vs. DBMF: Gold vs. AI-Managed Managed Futures (Trend Following)
GLD compounded at roughly 20.0% per year over the past five years; DBMF at 8.5%. Reading that gap as "gold won" misunderstands what DBMF is built to do....
-
VNQ vs. PPTY: REITs Index vs. AI-Powered Real Estate Value Analysis
VNQ is the cheap, deep, market-cap-weighted way to own U.S. listed real estate; PPTY is a fundamentals-tilted alternative that markets itself as smarter...
-
VTI vs. AIEQ: Total Market Index vs. IBM Watson’s AI Selection Performance
Over the trailing five years, VTI compounded at 11.8% annually while AIEQ — the IBM Watson-powered active equity ETF — compounded at 4.4%, a gap of roughly...
-
VOO vs. AMOM: Can AI Momentum Outperform the S&P 500? (2026 Analysis)
Over the trailing five years, VOO compounded at 13.1% per year versus AMOM at 9.6% — with roughly 40% more volatility and a maximum drawdown nearly twice as...
-
The "All-Weather" AI Portfolio: Combining Diversification with Predictive Power
Dalio's "all-weather" idea is sound on its merits — risk-balanced exposure across four macro environments — and is implementable today with five or six...
-
Best AI-Managed ETFs for 2026: A Deep Dive into AIEQ and AMOM
AIEQ (Amplify AI Powered Equity) and AMOM (QRAFT AI-Enhanced Momentum) both charge 0.75% — roughly 25 times the cost of a broad-market index ETF — for an...
-
The Future of Active Management: How AI Agents are Replacing Traditional Hedge Funds
"Agentic AI replaces hedge funds" is a marketing frame, not a structural claim — Sharpe's (1991) arithmetic of active management does not bend because the...
-
VOO vs. MTUM vs. QUAL: Which Smart Beta ETF Wins Numerically? (Backtest Analysis)
Over the trailing five years, the cap-weighted S&P 500 (VOO) actually outperformed both factor ETFs on raw return — 13.1% CAGR versus MTUM's 11.5% and...
-
BOTZ vs IRBO: Finding the Most Cost-Effective Entry into Automation
Over the trailing five years, IRBO's equal-weighted approach delivered an 11.1% CAGR versus BOTZ's 4.3% — a 6.8-point gap that dwarfs the 21 bp fee...
Mentions are detected across the full text of every article, so an appearance may be a passing comparison rather than the subject. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell — see the disclaimer.