Fund index
LRGF
3 articles on this site analyse LRGF — 1 of them head-on.
Measured concentration
as of 2026-04-30LRGF reports 297 positions, but the weights make it behave like about 54.2 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 LRGF is held at a quoted market price, across 10 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
27Between 2019-10-31 and 2026-04-30, LRGF went from behaving like 89.4 equally weighted positions to 54.2 — 39% fewer, while its top ten went from 22.42% to 33.96% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.
| Period | Holdings | Effective | Top 10 | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-30 | 297 | 54.2 | 33.96% | 7.51% |
| 2026-01-31 | 301 | 53.9 | 33.81% | 7.5% |
| 2025-10-31 | 289 | 48.5 | 35.44% | 7.98% |
| 2025-07-31 | 288 | 52.3 | 34.09% | 7.49% |
| 2025-04-30 | 291 | 63.7 | 30.32% | 6.31% |
| 2025-01-31 | 280 | 60.9 | 32.25% | 6.48% |
| 2024-10-31 | 280 | 58.5 | 31.41% | 6.6% |
| 2024-07-31 | 283 | 59.5 | 31.21% | 6.54% |
| 2024-04-30 | 289 | 68.1 | 29.43% | 6.27% |
| 2024-01-31 | 293 | 67.4 | 28.43% | 6.7% |
| 2023-10-31 | 297 | 61.5 | 30.09% | 6.7% |
| 2023-07-31 | 309 | 69.1 | 27.2% | 7.06% |
| 2023-04-30 | 314 | 71.5 | 26.32% | 6.71% |
| 2023-01-31 | 333 | 89.5 | 23.09% | 5.75% |
| 2022-10-31 | 319 | 83.1 | 24.08% | 6.44% |
| 2022-07-31 | 310 | 75.8 | 25.45% | 6.47% |
| 2022-04-30 | 161 | 81 | 25.28% | 4.47% |
| 2022-01-31 | 161 | 79 | 26.05% | 4.67% |
| 2021-10-31 | 154 | 78.2 | 25.99% | 4.12% |
| 2021-07-31 | 154 | 80.6 | 25.63% | 4.07% |
| 2021-04-30 | 166 | 86.1 | 24.4% | 4.07% |
| 2021-01-31 | 168 | 82.9 | 25.18% | 4.52% |
| 2020-10-31 | 145 | 75.6 | 26.58% | 4% |
| 2020-07-31 | 147 | 76.4 | 26.23% | 3.93% |
| 2020-04-30 | 161 | 75.8 | 26.68% | 3.47% |
| 2020-01-31 | 161 | 87.3 | 24.01% | 3.2% |
| 2019-10-31 | 165 | 89.4 | 22.42% | 3.27% |
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
4All articles
3-
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...
-
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)...
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.