COWZ holdings

Computed by this site from the fund's SEC Form N-PORT filing; what the measure does not tell you · every fund in one table · hold it with other funds? X-ray the mix. Pricing: 99.38% at a quoted market price (level 1), 4 issuer countries.

COWZ's largest investment is Qualcomm Inc at 2.67% of net assets. Altria Group Inc and ConocoPhillips follow; the three together are 7.04%. Ten companies are 20.44% of the fund; the other 91 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, COWZ behaves like 73.2 holdings against a median of 42.4 — 1.7 times the median. Across 26 quarterly filings COWZ has held roughly steady since 2019-10-31 (68.7 then, 72.1 now). Between the 2026-01-31 and 2026-04-30 filings 21 positions were added and 22 dropped; 23.8% of the weight moved.

Each sentence is read from the fund's own SEC filing; the class median is computed across the comparable equity funds on this site. Nothing here is a view on the fund.

Between 2019-10-31 and 2026-04-30, COWZ went from behaving like 68.7 equally weighted positions to 72.1 — 5% more, while its top ten went from 22% to 21.15% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.

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.

The 15 largest of 101 positions in COWZ's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: COWZ.csv.gz.

Share of COWZ's own investments by the issuer country the filer reported (incorporation, not revenue). Each country links to every fund that holds it.

Monthly total returns from Item B.5 of COWZ's own filings, 78 months on record. Not computed here and not from a price feed.

Cross-checked against a series computed separately from prices: median difference 0.06 percentage points over 78 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: COWZ.json · all funds.

The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2026-07-31, $112m was out to 8 borrowers. The largest, JP MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, held 49.8% of it.

The filing reports no cash collateral position against this loan. Collateral taken in a form the fund does not hold as a position does not appear in N-PORT, so this is silence rather than absence. What the collateral figure can and cannot show. Every quarter COWZ has filed, with each borrower: COWZ.json · all funds.

102 positions became 101: 21 added (15.0% of the fund at the later date), 22 dropped (20.1% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 23.8%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of COWZ compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

New: CVS Health Corp (2.16%), T-Mobile US Inc (1.78%), Intuit Inc (1.63%), Automatic Data Processing Inc (1.30%), Roper Technologies Inc (0.78%), Autodesk Inc (0.72%). Gone: Exxon Mobil Corp (2.34%), Chevron Corp (2.27%), Merck & Co Inc (2.13%), Walt Disney Co/The (2.07%), Amgen Inc (2.00%), General Dynamics Corp (1.53%).

99.27% equity, 0.73% short-term investment as filed; 99.4% carried at a quoted market price (fair-value level 1). Categories and levels are the filer's; what a low level-1 share does and does not mean is in the measure's page.

Every measured equity fund lined up by how many holdings it behaves like; these sit either side of COWZ (73.2). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.

• 004 Expense ratio
• 004 Maximum drawdown
• 004 Standard deviation
• 004 Factor exposure
• 004 Turnover
• 003 Beta

• CALF vs AVUV: Small-Cap Free Cash Flow vs Small-Cap Value — Two Quality Screens

  Both funds screen small-caps for "quality," but on different variables: CALF ranks by free-cash-flow yield, AVUV by valuation crossed with profitability....

  04 Jul 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• OMFL vs FCTR: Dynamic Multi-Factor — Rules-Based Rotation vs AI Optimization

  Both funds rotate factor exposure by rule, not by forecast — but OMFL blends several factors against a macro-regime signal while FCTR makes a near-binary...

  29 Jun 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• BOTZ vs. ROBO vs. AIQ: Three AI & Robotics ETFs Compared

  The three funds share a marketing category but not a portfolio: AIQ's 5-year CAGR of 17.2% comes mostly from mega-cap semiconductors and hyperscalers, not...

  30 May 2026 10 min ETF Analysis

• COWZ vs. FCTR: Free Cash Flow Focus vs. AI Multi-Factor Optimization

  Over the trailing five years, COWZ compounded at 10.6% per year while FCTR managed 2.9%, with a deeper drawdown — the simpler rule beat the adaptive model...

  14 May 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• The Master Guide to Evidence-Based ETF Portfolios: Using AI to Optimize Allocation (2026)

  "AI-driven portfolio optimization" mostly solves a problem long-horizon investors don't actually have. Real-time tilting at retail frequency tends to cost...

  26 Apr 2026 9 min Long-Term Strategy