LRGF 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: 100% at a quoted market price (level 1), 10 issuer countries.

LRGF's largest investment is Nvidia Corp at 7.51% of net assets. Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp follow; the three together are 18.24%. Ten companies are 34.85% of the fund; the other 284 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, LRGF behaves like 51.8 holdings against a median of 42.4 — close to the median. Across 27 quarterly filings LRGF has become more concentrated: it behaved like 90.9 at 2019-10-31 and 54.2 at 2026-04-30. Between the 2026-01-31 and 2026-04-30 filings 18 positions were added and 23 dropped; 8.4% 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, LRGF went from behaving like 90.9 equally weighted positions to 54.2 — 40% fewer, while its top ten went from 22.4% to 33.97% 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 294 positions in LRGF's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: LRGF.csv.gz.

Share of LRGF'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 LRGF's own filings, 81 months on record. Not computed here and not from a price feed.

Cross-checked against a series computed separately from prices: median difference 0.04 percentage points over 81 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: LRGF.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, $7m was out to 6 borrowers. The largest, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., held 73.2% 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 LRGF has filed, with each borrower: LRGF.json · all funds.

299 positions became 294: 18 added (2.2% of the fund at the later date), 23 dropped (1.8% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 8.4%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of LRGF compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

New: AerCap Holdings NV (0.54%), Weatherford International plc (0.23%), UL Solutions, Inc. (0.22%), Amer Sports, Inc. (0.20%), Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. (0.20%), Intel Corp. (0.17%). Gone: Monday.com Ltd. (0.17%), Vornado Realty Trust (0.16%), Wix.com Ltd. (0.15%), Gitlab, Inc. (0.15%), Elastic NV (0.13%), Duolingo, Inc. (0.13%).

99.73% equity, 0.27% short-term investment as filed; 100.0% 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.

A position count cannot describe a fund that uses derivatives, because a swap is filed at its unrealised gain, not its exposure. These are the notionals the fund itself reported, against net assets of $3.26B. Notional of an interest-rate or currency swap is not equity exposure.

Full detail for every fund that files derivatives: leverage.json (CC BY 4.0).

Every measured equity fund lined up by how many holdings it behaves like; these sit either side of LRGF (51.8). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.

• 003 Expense ratio
• 003 Maximum drawdown
• 003 Standard deviation
• 003 Factor exposure

• 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

• 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...

  27 May 2026 10 min ETF Analysis

• 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)...

  25 May 2026 11 min ETF Analysis