Fund · iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF · measured from SEC filings
QUAL holdings
QUAL reports 127 holdings and behaves like 37.4 equally weighted ones, computed from its SEC Form N-PORT filing for 2026-07-31. The fact sheet publishes the first number; this page computes the second, and traces it across 27 quarters of filings.
Measured concentration
as of 2026-07-31Computed 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), 6 issuer countries.
What stands out
as of 2026-07-31QUAL's largest investment is Nvidia Corp at 6.5% of net assets. Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp follow; the three together are 17.81%. Ten companies are 43.23% of the fund; the other 117 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, QUAL behaves like 37.4 holdings against a median of 42.4 — close to the median. Across 27 quarterly filings QUAL has become more concentrated: it behaved like 56.3 at 2019-10-31 and 41.6 at 2026-04-30. Between the 2026-01-31 and 2026-04-30 filings 1 positions were added and 5 dropped; 5.5% 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.
Every filing since 2019
27Between 2019-10-31 and 2026-04-30, QUAL went from behaving like 56.3 equally weighted positions to 41.6 — 26% fewer, while its top ten went from 32.05% to 39.05% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.
| Period | Holdings | Effective | Top 10 | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-30 | 123 | 41.6 | 39.05% | 6.51% |
| 2026-01-31 | 127 | 41.8 | 39.45% | 6.37% |
| 2025-10-31 | 127 | 35.1 | 43.54% | 8.37% |
| 2025-07-31 | 127 | 37.3 | 42.7% | 7.81% |
| 2025-04-30 | 124 | 39.8 | 42% | 6.15% |
| 2025-01-31 | 126 | 40.8 | 40.64% | 6.3% |
| 2024-10-31 | 126 | 41.6 | 40.65% | 6.59% |
| 2024-07-31 | 127 | 43.4 | 39.35% | 5.96% |
Earlier filings (19 more, back to 2019-10-31)
| Period | Holdings | Effective | Top 10 | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-04-30 | 127 | 42.6 | 39.94% | 6.86% |
| 2024-01-31 | 127 | 45.4 | 38.48% | 5.09% |
| 2023-10-31 | 125 | 42.2 | 40.19% | 5.84% |
| 2023-07-31 | 127 | 43.6 | 38.78% | 6.18% |
| 2023-04-30 | 126 | 46.6 | 36.68% | 5.48% |
| 2023-01-31 | 126 | 51.1 | 33.23% | 6.1% |
| 2022-10-31 | 125 | 56 | 31.33% | 4.04% |
| 2022-07-31 | 127 | 54.9 | 32.47% | 4.37% |
| 2022-04-30 | 125 | 53.5 | 33.25% | 4.94% |
| 2022-01-31 | 126 | 53.2 | 32.91% | 4.53% |
| 2021-10-31 | 126 | 53.5 | 32.82% | 4.2% |
| 2021-07-31 | 127 | 53.6 | 32.47% | 4.77% |
| 2021-04-30 | 126 | 57.1 | 31.07% | 4.22% |
| 2021-01-31 | 127 | 56.5 | 31.33% | 4.45% |
| 2020-10-31 | 125 | 51.7 | 33.75% | 4.38% |
| 2020-07-31 | 127 | 53 | 33.14% | 4.29% |
| 2020-04-30 | 127 | 50.8 | 34.35% | 4.59% |
| 2020-01-31 | 126 | 53.9 | 32.63% | 4.13% |
| 2019-10-31 | 127 | 56.3 | 32.05% | 4.66% |
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.
Compared with, in the essays
4Overlap with other funds
3Measured against every other fund on this site, from the same filings. Combined effective holdings is how the pair behaves held in equal size.
| With | Overlap | Shared | Combined effective |
|---|---|---|---|
| QUAL vs VOO | 44.35% | 115 | 52.5 |
| QUAL vs MTUM | 27.71% | 31 | 59.9 |
| QUAL vs MOAT | 12.36% | 15 | 75.8 |
Largest positions, as filed
as of 2026-04-30The 15 largest of 127 positions in QUAL's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: QUAL.csv.gz.
| # | Position | Weight | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NVIDIA CORPORATION | 6.51% | 6.5% |
| 2 | APPLE INC. | 6.27% | 12.8% |
| 3 | MICROSOFT CORPORATION | 5.04% | 17.8% |
| 4 | META PLATFORMS, INC. | 3.49% | 21.3% |
| 5 | LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION | 3.22% | 24.5% |
| 6 | THE TJX COMPANIES, INC. | 3.19% | 27.7% |
| 7 | VISA INC. | 3.08% | 30.8% |
| 8 | ELI LILLY AND COMPANY | 2.92% | 33.7% |
| 9 | KLA CORPORATION | 2.79% | 36.5% |
| 10 | ALPHABET INC. | 2.53% | 39.0% |
| 11 | CATERPILLAR INC. | 2.52% | 41.6% |
| 12 | APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. | 2.45% | 44.0% |
| 13 | MASTERCARD INCORPORATED | 2.30% | 46.3% |
| 14 | ALPHABET INC. | 2.11% | 48.4% |
| 15 | BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. | 2.11% | 50.5% |
By country of issuer
as of 2026-04-30Share of QUAL's own investments by the issuer country the filer reported (incorporation, not revenue). Each country links to every fund that holds it.
| Country | Share |
|---|---|
| United States | 94.83% |
| Ireland° | 2.62% |
| Curaçao° | 1.56% |
| Switzerland | 0.87% |
| Bermuda° | 0.12% |
Returns the fund reported
2019-08 – 2026-04Monthly total returns from Item B.5 of QUAL'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 0.05 percentage points over 81 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: QUAL.json · all funds.
Who borrows QUAL's shares
2026-04-30The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2026-04-30, $191m was out to 11 borrowers, 0.38% of net assets. The largest, MORGAN STANLEY & CO LLC, held 27.6% of it.
| Borrower | On loan | Share of the loan |
|---|---|---|
| MORGAN STANLEY & CO LLC | $53m | 27.6% |
| CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC. | $49m | 25.8% |
| Wells Fargo Securities LLC | $26m | 13.8% |
| BNP PARIBAS PRIME BROKERAGE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED | $26m | 13.4% |
| ING FINANCIAL MARKETS, LLC | $13m | 6.6% |
Cash collateral reported against the loan: 0.38% of net assets, 99.5% 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 QUAL has filed, with each borrower: QUAL.json · all funds.
Since the previous filing
2026-01-31 → 2026-04-30127 positions became 123: 1 added (0.0% of the fund at the later date), 5 dropped (0.1% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 5.5%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of QUAL compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.
| Largest increases | 2026-01-31 | 2026-04-30 | Largest decreases | 2026-01-31 | 2026-04-30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CATERPILLAR INC. | 1.90% | 2.52% | META PLATFORMS, INC. | 4.18% | 3.49% |
| KLA CORPORATION | 2.32% | 2.78% | ACCENTURE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY | 1.25% | 0.83% |
| APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. | 2.04% | 2.45% | MICROSOFT CORPORATION | 5.44% | 5.04% |
| ALPHABET INC. | 2.27% | 2.53% | NIKE, INC. | 1.32% | 0.93% |
| LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION | 2.98% | 3.22% | ELI LILLY AND COMPANY | 3.31% | 2.92% |
| ARISTA NETWORKS, INC. | 1.25% | 1.49% | ADOBE INC. | 1.45% | 1.19% |
New: S P500 EMINI FUT JUN26 (0.01%). Gone: PAYCOM SOFTWARE, INC. (0.05%), AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT (0.05%), AMERICAN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. (0.03%), BROWN-FORMAN CORPORATION (0.01%), S P500 EMINI FUT MAR26 (0.00%).
Asset categories and pricing
as of 2026-07-3199.89% equity, 0.11% 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.
Derivative exposure and counterparties
as of 2026-04-30A 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 $50.11B. 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).
Neighbours by effective holdings, equity funds
10Every measured equity fund lined up by how many holdings it behaves like; these sit either side of QUAL (37.4). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.
| Fund | Reports | Behaves like | Top ten | As of |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DYNF iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF | 228 | 36.8 | 41.59% | 2026-07-31 |
| BGDV Bahl & Gaynor Dividend ETF | 52 | 36.9 | 38.21% | 2026-06-30 |
| OUSA ALPS | OShares U.S. Quality Dividend ETF | 101 | 37 | 44.34% | 2026-05-31 |
| SETM Sprott Critical Materials ETF | 158 | 37.1 | 41.92% | 2026-06-30 |
| BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF | 53 | 37.4 | 39.68% | 2026-06-30 |
| GDXJ VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF | 116 | 37.5 | 42.72% | 2026-06-30 |
| ORR Militia Long/Short Equity ETF | 144 | 37.5 | 44% | 2026-05-29 |
| CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF | 53 | 37.7 | 38.76% | 2026-05-31 |
| UFOX Defiance Connective Technologies ETF | 59 | 37.8 | 41.32% | 2026-06-30 |
| NTSX WisdomTree U.S. Efficient Core Fund | 506 | 38 * | 42.57% | 2026-06-30 |
Measures applied in the essays
8Essays that examine QUAL
17-
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) —...
-
The Hidden Cost of Turnover: How Rebalancing and Reconstitution Erode Factor-ETF Returns
Factor ETFs carry a cost the expense ratio never shows: the trading friction of periodic reconstitution and rebalancing, which is absorbed inside net asset...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
USMV vs SPLV: Two Approaches to Low-Volatility Investing — Which Defense Holds Up?
USMV (optimizer-based minimum variance) and SPLV (simple lowest-volatility ranking) sound similar but are built differently — and the construction gap, not...
-
VGT vs QQQ: Tech Sector vs Nasdaq-100 — How Different Are They Really?
VGT is a pure GICS Information Technology sector fund; QQQ is the Nasdaq-100, a multi-sector index that excludes some of the names most people assume are...
-
How Factor Loadings Drift: Watching MTUM, QUAL, and SIZE Over Five Years
The three iShares single-factor ETFs all carry the same 0.15% fee, but their realized 5Y CAGRs differ by 6.0 percentage points — that gap is mostly about...
-
AMOM Explained: How AI Weights Momentum Differently from MTUM
MTUM is a $24B rules-based momentum factor ETF charging 0.15%. AMOM is a $30M AI-overlay product charging 0.75%. The construction philosophies are...
-
AIEQ Review: 7 Years of Live AI-Managed ETF — What Actually Worked
After more than eight years of live trading, AIEQ has trailed SPY by roughly 700 basis points per year on a 5Y annualized basis, while running 5.3 points...
-
VOO vs. AMOM: Can AI Momentum Outperform the S&P 500? (2026 Analysis)
Over the trailing five years, VOO compounded at 13.1% per year versus AMOM at 9.6% — with roughly 40% more volatility and a maximum drawdown nearly twice as...
-
The Master Class: How to Use Claude (Anthropic) to Backtest Your Own ETF Strategy
Claude can write the Python and run the math, but it cannot tell you whether your test design is honest. Most retail backtests fail at design, not at code....
-
SCHD vs VIG: A Quantitative Analysis of Dividend Quality Factors
VIG outpaced SCHD by roughly 160 basis points per year over the trailing five years (10.3% vs 8.7% CAGR), driven by its broader sector reach and...
-
VOO vs. MTUM vs. QUAL: Which Smart Beta ETF Wins Based on Historical Backtests?
Over the trailing 5 years, plain VOO (13.1% CAGR) beat both MTUM (11.5%) and QUAL (11.4%) — the factor premium did not show up in this window. Over 10...
-
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...
-
VOO vs. MTUM vs. QUAL: Which Smart Beta ETF Wins Numerically? (Backtest Analysis)
Over the trailing five years, the cap-weighted S&P 500 (VOO) actually outperformed both factor ETFs on raw return — 13.1% CAGR versus MTUM's 11.5% and...
-
Why "Factor Investing" Still Works: Applying Fama-French Models in the AI Era
The Fama-French factors weren't a trading edge that AI could arbitrage away — they were compensation for risks investors still won't bear cheerfully, plus...
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.