MOAT 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), 2 issuer countries.

MOAT's largest investment is Masco Corp at 2.96% of net assets. Kenvue Inc and Airbnb Inc follow; the three together are 8.11%. Ten companies are 25.32% of the fund; the other 45 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, MOAT behaves like 50.1 holdings against a median of 42.4 — close to the median. Across 28 quarterly filings MOAT has held roughly steady since 2019-09-30 (46.8 then, 50.1 now). Between the 2026-03-31 and 2026-06-30 filings 7 positions were added and 9 dropped; 19.5% 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 2019-09-30 and 2026-06-30, MOAT went from behaving like 46.8 equally weighted positions to 50.1 — 7% more, while its top ten went from 25.91% to 25.32% 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.

Measured against every other fund on this site, from the same filings. Combined effective holdings is how the pair behaves held in equal size.

The 15 largest of 55 positions in MOAT's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: MOAT.csv.gz.

Share of MOAT'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 MOAT's own filings, 84 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 84 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: MOAT.json · all funds.

The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2026-06-30, $280m was out to 9 borrowers, 2.40% of net assets. The largest, BARCLAYS BANK PLC, held 53.9% of it.

Cash collateral reported against the loan: 0.01% of net assets, 0.4% of the amount lent. That is a floor on the collateral, not the whole of it — collateral the fund does not hold as a position is not in this filing, so a figure under 100% is not evidence of under-collateralisation. How that figure behaves across all funds. Every quarter MOAT has filed, with each borrower: MOAT.json · all funds.

57 positions became 55: 7 added (9.0% of the fund at the later date), 9 dropped (9.8% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 19.5%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of MOAT compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

New: Amphenol Corp (1.50%), Jack Henry & Associates Inc (1.33%), McCormick & Co Inc/MD (1.29%), MercadoLibre Inc (1.28%), Tractor Supply Co (1.28%), Guidewire Software Inc (1.18%). Gone: IDEX Corp (1.44%), United Parcel Service Inc (1.41%), Boeing Co/The (1.33%), Equifax Inc (1.16%), Salesforce Inc (0.98%), Adobe Inc (0.96%).

99.99% equity, 0.01% 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.

Every measured equity fund lined up by how many holdings it behaves like; these sit either side of MOAT (50.1). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.

• 003 Expense ratio
• 003 Factor exposure

• Factor Crowding and Alpha Decay: What Happens to a Premium After Everyone Reads the Paper

  Documented return predictors decay after they are published — roughly 58% lower post-publication than in the original sample, per McLean & Pontiff (2016) —...

  31 Aug 2026 10 min ETF Analysis

• 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...

  20 Aug 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• MOAT vs QUAL: Wide-Moat Selection vs the Quality Factor — Two Roads to 'Quality'

  MOAT and QUAL both sell "quality," but they reach it by opposite routes: MOAT is a concentrated, valuation-sensitive selection of wide-moat businesses; QUAL...

  26 Jun 2026 9 min ETF Analysis