Fund index
COWZ
5 articles on this site analyse COWZ — 1 of them head-on.
Measured concentration
as of 2026-04-30COWZ reports 102 positions, but the weights make it behave like about 71.8 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: 99.09% of COWZ is held at a quoted market price, across 4 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 2019
26Between 2019-10-31 and 2026-04-30, COWZ went from behaving like 17.5 equally weighted positions to 71.8 — 310% more, while its top ten went from 40.56% to 21.13% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.
| Period | Holdings | Effective | Top 10 | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-30 | 102 | 71.8 | 21.13% | 2.67% |
| 2026-01-31 | 103 | 69.5 | 21.74% | 2.34% |
| 2025-10-31 | 102 | 66.1 | 22.69% | 2.82% |
| 2025-07-31 | 104 | 69.4 | 20.79% | 2.16% |
| 2025-04-30 | 102 | 67.7 | 21.75% | 2.36% |
| 2025-01-31 | 103 | 67.3 | 22.25% | 3.32% |
| 2024-07-31 | 102 | 67.7 | 22.06% | 3.01% |
| 2024-04-30 | 103 | 60 | 24.55% | 4.77% |
| 2024-01-31 | 102 | 64 | 22.55% | 3.2% |
| 2023-10-31 | 102 | 50.5 | 26.64% | 6.94% |
| 2023-07-31 | 102 | 46.7 | 27.03% | 8.27% |
| 2023-04-30 | 102 | 46 | 27.58% | 8.14% |
| 2023-01-31 | 102 | 45.8 | 28.1% | 8.44% |
| 2022-10-31 | 102 | 31.1 | 33.19% | 12.98% |
| 2022-07-31 | 102 | 38.7 | 30.35% | 10.44% |
| 2022-04-30 | 102 | 37.3 | 30.79% | 10.96% |
| 2022-01-31 | 102 | 20.7 | 38.95% | 18.34% |
| 2021-10-31 | 103 | 26.2 | 35.53% | 15.49% |
| 2021-07-31 | 102 | 13.8 | 44.55% | 23.99% |
| 2021-04-30 | 102 | 34.5 | 31.14% | 12.19% |
| 2021-01-31 | 101 | 26.5 | 35.45% | 15.22% |
| 2020-10-31 | 103 | 41 | 28.85% | 10.25% |
| 2020-07-31 | 102 | 34.1 | 32.9% | 11.95% |
| 2020-04-30 | 101 | 9.9 | 49.63% | 29.32% |
| 2020-01-31 | 103 | 18.4 | 39.55% | 19.98% |
| 2019-10-31 | 103 | 17.5 | 40.56% | 20.61% |
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
1Measures applied to it
6All articles
5-
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....
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
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.