USMV 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), 6 issuer countries.

USMV's largest investment is Cisco Systems Inc at 1.8% of net assets. Nvidia Corp and Exxon Mobil Corporation follow; the three together are 5.04%. Ten companies are 15.14% of the fund; the other 158 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, USMV behaves like 110.5 holdings against a median of 42.4 — 2.6 times the median. Across 27 quarterly filings USMV has held roughly steady since 2019-10-31 (124.7 then, 109.2 now). Between the 2026-01-31 and 2026-04-30 filings 9 positions were added and 8 dropped; 8.8% 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, USMV went from behaving like 124.7 equally weighted positions to 109.2 — 12% fewer, while its top ten went from 14.86% to 15.64% 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 168 positions in USMV's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: USMV.csv.gz.

Share of USMV'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 USMV'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: USMV.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, $35m was out to 6 borrowers. The largest, GOLDMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL, held 57.6% 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 USMV has filed, with each borrower: USMV.json · all funds.

172 positions became 173: 9 added (1.4% of the fund at the later date), 8 dropped (1.3% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 8.8%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of USMV compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

New: SUN COMMUNITIES, INC. (0.54%), MARVELL TECHNOLOGY, INC. (0.26%), CHENIERE ENERGY, INC. (0.21%), VENTAS, INC. (0.17%), APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. (0.12%), Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd (0.08%). Gone: BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY (0.71%), BENTLEY SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED (0.19%), DYNATRACE, INC. (0.18%), GARTNER, INC. (0.06%), PFIZER INC. (0.05%), NUTANIX, INC. (0.04%).

99.68% equity, 0.32% 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 $22.86B. 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 USMV (110.5). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.

• 006 Beta
• 005 Expense ratio
• 005 Duration
• 005 Turnover
• 003 Maximum drawdown
• 003 Factor exposure
• 003 Correlation

• 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...

  31 Aug 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• 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...

  22 Aug 2026 9 min Long-Term Strategy

• 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...

  22 Jun 2026 8 min ETF Analysis

• 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...

  26 Apr 2026 9 min Long-Term Strategy

• 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...

  24 Apr 2026 11 min ETF Analysis

• 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...

  23 Apr 2026 10 min Macro & Markets