Fund index
SPLV
5 articles on this site analyse SPLV — 1 of them head-on.
Measured concentration
as of 2026-05-31SPLV reports 105 positions, but the weights make it behave like about 93.9 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: 97.1% of SPLV is held at a quoted market price, across 5 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 2019-11-30 and 2026-05-31, SPLV went from behaving like 99 equally weighted positions to 93.9 — 5% fewer, while its top ten went from 12.08% to 13.45% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.
| Period | Holdings | Effective | Top 10 | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-31 | 105 | 93.9 | 13.45% | 2.15% |
| 2026-02-28 | 102 | 93 | 13.65% | 2.1% |
| 2025-11-30 | 102 | 96.1 | 12.26% | 1.47% |
| 2025-08-31 | 102 | 90.7 | 13.35% | 2.82% |
| 2025-05-31 | 102 | 90.4 | 13.51% | 2.94% |
| 2025-02-28 | 102 | 95 | 12.99% | 2.13% |
| 2024-11-30 | 102 | 93.4 | 13.45% | 2.31% |
| 2024-08-31 | 102 | 96.2 | 12.7% | 1.47% |
| 2024-05-31 | 102 | 97.5 | 12.53% | 1.43% |
| 2024-02-29 | 102 | 95.9 | 13.03% | 1.59% |
| 2023-11-30 | 102 | 97.6 | 12.35% | 1.39% |
| 2023-08-31 | 102 | 95.4 | 12.85% | 1.84% |
| 2023-05-31 | 102 | 98.1 | 11.98% | 1.39% |
| 2023-02-28 | 102 | 99.5 | 11.82% | 1.28% |
| 2022-11-30 | 103 | 99.7 | 11.54% | 1.28% |
| 2022-08-31 | 103 | 88.2 | 14.16% | 3.28% |
| 2022-05-31 | 103 | 98.7 | 11.99% | 1.25% |
| 2022-02-28 | 102 | 98.5 | 12.39% | 1.34% |
| 2021-11-30 | 102 | 98.5 | 12.45% | 1.33% |
| 2021-08-31 | 102 | 98.5 | 12.62% | 1.4% |
| 2021-05-31 | 102 | 98.4 | 12.85% | 1.4% |
| 2021-02-28 | 102 | 98.9 | 12.17% | 1.54% |
| 2020-11-30 | 101 | 98.9 | 12.27% | 1.45% |
| 2020-08-31 | 100 | 99.1 | 12.16% | 1.43% |
| 2020-05-31 | 100 | 99.4 | 11.68% | 1.34% |
| 2020-02-29 | 100 | 98.5 | 12.17% | 1.31% |
| 2019-11-30 | 102 | 99 | 12.08% | 1.27% |
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
5All articles
5-
The Low-Volatility Anomaly: Why Boring Stocks Keep Beating the Theory
The low-volatility anomaly — lower-risk stocks earning competitive or better risk-adjusted returns — has survived decades of out-of-sample testing, but the...
-
Minimum Variance vs Maximum Diversification: Two Optimizers, Two Very Different Portfolios
Minimum variance and maximum diversification start from the same covariance matrix but optimize different things — one minimizes portfolio volatility, the...
-
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...
-
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...
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.