Amplify Cybersecurity ETF(HACK)
AI Look-Through Summary
AI GeneratedThe Amplify Cybersecurity ETF appears to be heavily concentrated in technology companies, with over 58% of its holdings allocated to this sector. This is not surprising given the fund's focus on cybersecurity, which is often associated with tech-related industries. The portfolio also has a notable presence in industrials, likely due to the inclusion of defense contractors like GD and NOC.
The weighted P/E ratio of 30.5x suggests that the fund's holdings are trading at a premium valuation compared to the broader market. The sector mix is skewed towards technology, which could be beneficial if there is a strong tailwind in this space. However, the high concentration in tech may also increase the risk of the portfolio being overly exposed to any potential downturns in this sector. A macro environment characterized by rising cybersecurity threats and increasing demand for related services would likely be favorable, while a slowdown in tech spending or increased regulatory scrutiny could be unfavorable.
Generated by Qwen-32B from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-06-12 09:39:02.751583+00
🔍 Theme Alignment Audit
AI GeneratedPurity: 78/100The Amplify Cybersecurity ETF demonstrates a strong nominal alignment with its thematic mandate, as the majority of top holdings are explicitly classified within the Technology sector and represent established players in network security, cloud infrastructure, and software solutions. However, the presence of significant Industrials exposure through General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman introduces a layer of complexity regarding pure cyber focus, given that these entities primarily operate as defense contractors where cybersecurity is only one component of broader hardware and systems integration portfolios. Furthermore, while the fund avoids obvious diversifiers like consumer staples or utilities, its reliance on large-cap technology leaders suggests an approach designed to capture sector-wide beta rather than isolating niche security vendors with higher thematic purity.
Sector coherence remains high with Technology comprising over half the portfolio, yet the concentration risk is notable given that the top ten positions account for more than 53% of assets under management. This heavy weighting in mega-cap stocks indicates that the fund's performance will be heavily influenced by a few dominant names rather than a broad dispersion across smaller, specialized cybersecurity firms. The limited Industrials exposure appears functionally consistent with a defense-tech overlap but slightly dilutes the distinctiveness from a pure software index. Ultimately, while the holdings are thematically relevant to digital security and physical protection systems, the fund's structure leans heavily toward established large-cap growth rather than maintaining an aggressive or narrow thematic differentiation from broader technology indices.
AI analysis of holdings alignment vs fund theme. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-22 03:29:59.870534+00
🏢 Sector Analysis
AI GeneratedThe Amplify Cybersecurity ETF (HACK) exhibits a sector allocation heavily skewed toward the Technology industry, which accounts for 58.5% of the portfolio through twelve distinct holdings. This significant weighting aligns with the primary investment thesis targeting companies that develop cybersecurity software and hardware solutions, as these entities are predominantly classified within the technology sector. The remaining exposure is concentrated in Industrials at 10.5%, represented by only two positions, indicating a secondary focus on defense contractors or industrial firms integrating security protocols into their operations rather than a broad diversification across other economic sectors.
Concentration risk appears elevated given that the top five holdings collectively represent a substantial portion of the fund's assets, with the largest single position holding 6.8% and the combined top-ten concentration reaching 53.1%. This structure suggests that performance will be highly sensitive to market movements within specific large-cap technology names such as Broadcom, Cisco Systems, and Palo Alto Networks, alongside major industrial players like General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman. The reliance on a narrow set of high-weighted positions implies that the fund may lack immediate diversification benefits against idiosyncratic risks associated with these individual companies, even though they are spread across two different sectors.
Underlying this allocation is a clear factor tilt toward large-capitalization growth stocks and established market leaders rather than small-cap or value-oriented strategies. The dominance of well-known industry giants in the top holdings points to an approach that prioritizes liquidity and proven revenue models within the cybersecurity space over speculative exposure to emerging players. Consequently, while the fund offers targeted access to the security sector, its risk profile is defined by the volatility of these specific large-cap constituents rather than a balanced spread across various market caps or industries.
AI-generated sector analysis from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-23 01:14:49.678436+00
Flow Driver Analysis
2-Step CircleWhich larger ETFs share HACK's holdings — and mechanically drive its price through index rebalancing flows?
Approximately 100% of HACK's weight flows through these larger ETFs
| Driver ETF | AUM | Expense | Shared Stocks | Weight Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGTVGT | $122B | — | 17 | 77.9% |
| QUSQUS | $1B | — | 12 | 61.2% |
| SPTMSPTM | $12B | — | 12 | 58.6% |
| ESGVESGV | $11B | — | 11 | 55.3% |
| ONEOONEO | $25M | — | 11 | 54.4% |
78% of HACK's portfolio by weight is also held by VGT, which commands 65× more assets under management. When VGT receives inflows, it mechanically buys these shared stocks — dragging HACK's NAV along regardless of any thematic or sector catalyst. Combined, the top 5 overlapping ETFs control exposure to 100% ofHACK's weight.
Overlap computed from constituent-level holdings data across 5 ETFs. Price co-movement with driver ETFs is structural, not coincidental. Not investment advice.
ETF Look-Through Dashboard
Peer through the ETF wrapper to see exactly what you own. Every metric is computed from constituent-level data.
Weighted metrics calculated based on 61% of fund assets with available data.
Herfindahl-Hirschman Concentration Index
Morningstar-Style Box
Sector & Cap Explorer
ETF Fundamental Radar
Operational health is mixed, with the bulk of weight in the mid-range (4–6) Piotroski scores.
Piotroski F-Score (Operational Health)
Score 0-9: Measures Profitability, Leverage, and Efficiency
Computed by rolling up individual stock Piotroski F-Scores, Altman Z-Scores, and Beneish M-Scores weighted by each constituent's allocation.
Dividend Safety True-Up
DeterministicThe dividend-paying companies inside HACK collectively pay out 38% of their Free Cash Flow to maintain the current yield. This leaves a substantial cash buffer, making dividend cuts unlikely even in a downturn. Based on 30% of fund weight in dividend-paying stocks.
FCF Payout Ratio = Dividends Paid / Free Cash Flow, weighted by constituent allocation. Not investment advice.
Earnings vs. Price Decomposition
ProprietaryHACK is up 14.6% over the last 12 months. The underlying weighted earnings growth of its constituents is +34.8%. Despite earnings growth, valuations have contracted by 20.2% — the market is paying less per dollar of earnings than a year ago.
Earnings growth = weighted average YoY EPS growth of all constituents (capped at ±500% to limit outlier distortion). Based on 85% of fund weight with earnings data. Not investment advice.
Value Creation Map
ROIC vs WACCWhat percentage of HACK's weight is allocated to companies that create economic value (ROIC > WACC) vs. destroy it?
Of HACK's analyzed weight, 48% is invested in companies earning more than their cost of capital — genuine value creators. The remaining 52% consists of companies whose ROIC falls below their WACC, effectively destroying shareholder value with every dollar invested.
ROIC-WACC spread for 81% of fund weight with available data. Not investment advice.
Passive Crowding Score
MODERATEHow much of each constituent's market cap is structurally locked in passive ETFs — a proxy for liquidity fragility during sell-offs.
HACK has a Passive Crowding Score of 30/100. On average, 9.1% of the market capitalization of HACK's underlying holdings is structurally locked in passive ETF vehicles. This indicates moderate passive ownership density. Index rebalances and ETF creation/redemption activity can amplify short-term volatility in the underlying holdings.
Passive $ = Σ(ETF AUM × holding weight) across all 49 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds). Not investment advice.
Under the Hood — Top 15 Constituents
| # | Ticker | Company | Weight | P/E | F-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | Broadcom Inc Technology | 6.81% | 63.7x | 8/9 |
| 2 | PANW | Palo Alto Networks Inc Technology | 5.83% | 243.1x | 4/9 |
| 3 | CSCO | Cisco Systems Inc Technology | 5.79% | 40.4x | 8/9 |
| 4 | NET | Cloudflare Inc Technology | 5.76% | — | 4/9 |
| 5 | CRWD | Crowdstrike Holdings Inc Technology | 5.48% | — | 4/9 |
| 6 | FSLY | Fastly Inc | 5.45% | — | 6/9 |
| 7 | GD | General Dynamics Corp Industrials | 5.01% | 22.7x | 8/9 |
| 8 | FTNT | Fortinet Inc Technology | 5.00% | 56.9x | 6/9 |
| 9 | NOC | Northrop Grumman Corp Industrials | 4.91% | 17.2x | 6/9 |
| 10 | OKTA | Okta Inc Technology | 4.50% | 84.3x | 7/9 |
| 11 | FFIV | F5 Inc Technology | 4.49% | 32.5x | 7/9 |
| 12 | ZS | Zscaler Inc Technology | 4.14% | — | 4/9 |
| 13 | CHKP | Check Point Software Technolog Technology | 4.02% | 12.8x | 5/9 |
| 14 | ATEN | A10 Networks Inc Technology | 3.90% | 52.1x | 4/9 |
| 15 | RBRK | Rubrik Inc | 3.78% | — | 5/9 |
Historical Holdings Snapshots
Browse how HACK’s holdings have changed across SEC filing dates. Showing top holdings per snapshot.
2026-06-17
15 holdings · 74.9% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | 6.81% | 413,621 | $128.0M |
| 2 | PANW | 5.83% | 683,561 | $109.6M |
| 3 | CSCO | 5.79% | 1,404,140 | $108.9M |
| 4 | NET | 5.76% | 525,554 | $108.4M |
| 5 | CRWD | 5.48% | 263,941 | $103.0M |
| 6 | FSLY | 5.45% | 3,527,935 | $102.5M |
| 7 | GD | 5.01% | 274,415 | $94.2M |
| 8 | FTNT | 5.00% | 1,151,485 | $94.1M |
| 9 | NOC | 4.91% | 135,437 | $92.4M |
| 10 | OKTA | 4.50% | 1,075,091 | $84.6M |
| 11 | FFIV | 4.49% | 292,015 | $84.5M |
| 12 | ZS | 4.14% | 555,369 | $77.9M |
| 13 | CHKP | 4.02% | 529,945 | $75.7M |
| 14 | ATEN | 3.90% | 3,170,974 | $73.3M |
| 15 | RBRK | 3.78% | 1,450,276 | $71.0M |
2026-06-16
15 holdings · 74.9% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | 6.81% | 413,621 | $128.0M |
| 2 | PANW | 5.83% | 683,561 | $109.6M |
| 3 | CSCO | 5.79% | 1,404,140 | $108.9M |
| 4 | NET | 5.76% | 525,554 | $108.4M |
| 5 | CRWD | 5.48% | 263,941 | $103.0M |
| 6 | FSLY | 5.45% | 3,527,935 | $102.5M |
| 7 | GD | 5.01% | 274,415 | $94.2M |
| 8 | FTNT | 5.00% | 1,151,485 | $94.1M |
| 9 | NOC | 4.91% | 135,437 | $92.4M |
| 10 | OKTA | 4.50% | 1,075,091 | $84.6M |
| 11 | FFIV | 4.49% | 292,015 | $84.5M |
| 12 | ZS | 4.14% | 555,369 | $77.9M |
| 13 | CHKP | 4.02% | 529,945 | $75.7M |
| 14 | ATEN | 3.90% | 3,170,974 | $73.3M |
| 15 | RBRK | 3.78% | 1,450,276 | $71.0M |
2026-06-15
15 holdings · 74.9% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | 6.81% | 413,621 | $128.0M |
| 2 | PANW | 5.83% | 683,561 | $109.6M |
| 3 | CSCO | 5.79% | 1,404,140 | $108.9M |
| 4 | NET | 5.76% | 525,554 | $108.4M |
| 5 | CRWD | 5.48% | 263,941 | $103.0M |
| 6 | FSLY | 5.45% | 3,527,935 | $102.5M |
| 7 | GD | 5.01% | 274,415 | $94.2M |
| 8 | FTNT | 5.00% | 1,151,485 | $94.1M |
| 9 | NOC | 4.91% | 135,437 | $92.4M |
| 10 | OKTA | 4.50% | 1,075,091 | $84.6M |
| 11 | FFIV | 4.49% | 292,015 | $84.5M |
| 12 | ZS | 4.14% | 555,369 | $77.9M |
| 13 | CHKP | 4.02% | 529,945 | $75.7M |
| 14 | ATEN | 3.90% | 3,170,974 | $73.3M |
| 15 | RBRK | 3.78% | 1,450,276 | $71.0M |
2026-06-14
15 holdings · 74.9% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | 6.81% | 413,621 | $128.0M |
| 2 | PANW | 5.83% | 683,561 | $109.6M |
| 3 | CSCO | 5.79% | 1,404,140 | $108.9M |
| 4 | NET | 5.76% | 525,554 | $108.4M |
| 5 | CRWD | 5.48% | 263,941 | $103.0M |
| 6 | FSLY | 5.45% | 3,527,935 | $102.5M |
| 7 | GD | 5.01% | 274,415 | $94.2M |
| 8 | FTNT | 5.00% | 1,151,485 | $94.1M |
| 9 | NOC | 4.91% | 135,437 | $92.4M |
| 10 | OKTA | 4.50% | 1,075,091 | $84.6M |
| 11 | FFIV | 4.49% | 292,015 | $84.5M |
| 12 | ZS | 4.14% | 555,369 | $77.9M |
| 13 | CHKP | 4.02% | 529,945 | $75.7M |
| 14 | ATEN | 3.90% | 3,170,974 | $73.3M |
| 15 | RBRK | 3.78% | 1,450,276 | $71.0M |
2026-06-13
15 holdings · 74.9% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | 6.81% | 413,621 | $128.0M |
| 2 | PANW | 5.83% | 683,561 | $109.6M |
| 3 | CSCO | 5.79% | 1,404,140 | $108.9M |
| 4 | NET | 5.76% | 525,554 | $108.4M |
| 5 | CRWD | 5.48% | 263,941 | $103.0M |
| 6 | FSLY | 5.45% | 3,527,935 | $102.5M |
| 7 | GD | 5.01% | 274,415 | $94.2M |
| 8 | FTNT | 5.00% | 1,151,485 | $94.1M |
| 9 | NOC | 4.91% | 135,437 | $92.4M |
| 10 | OKTA | 4.50% | 1,075,091 | $84.6M |
| 11 | FFIV | 4.49% | 292,015 | $84.5M |
| 12 | ZS | 4.14% | 555,369 | $77.9M |
| 13 | CHKP | 4.02% | 529,945 | $75.7M |
| 14 | ATEN | 3.90% | 3,170,974 | $73.3M |
| 15 | RBRK | 3.78% | 1,450,276 | $71.0M |
2026-06-12
15 holdings · 74.0% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | 6.82% | 413,704 | $143.2M |
| 2 | CSCO | 6.28% | 1,713,076 | $132.0M |
| 3 | PANW | 5.49% | 625,605 | $115.2M |
| 4 | GD | 5.29% | 329,908 | $111.1M |
| 5 | NOC | 5.23% | 192,686 | $109.9M |
| 6 | CRWD | 5.18% | 232,237 | $108.9M |
| 7 | NET | 4.94% | 526,516 | $103.8M |
| 8 | FTNT | 4.86% | 1,284,496 | $102.0M |
| 9 | RBRK | 4.52% | 1,241,162 | $94.9M |
| 10 | OKTA | 4.47% | 1,086,946 | $94.0M |
| 11 | FFIV | 4.43% | 364,815 | $93.1M |
| 12 | GEN | 4.38% | 3,387,013 | $92.1M |
| 13 | CHKP | 4.36% | 493,576 | $91.6M |
| 14 | ZS | 4.14% | 387,093 | $87.1M |
| 15 | VRNS | 3.56% | 2,281,839 | $74.8M |
Source: SEC filings and fund provider disclosures. Shows last 6 snapshot dates, top 15 holdings per date by weight.
Risk Profile
Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Computed from 1,200+ trading days with 5% risk-free rate.
Fama-French 5-Factor Exposure
Academic factor model decomposition — what's really driving this ETF's returns.
Fama-French 5-Factor Model. Data: Kenneth French Data Library. Regression over 3 years of daily returns.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
What Drove HACK Today?
Daily return attribution — which holdings contributed most (and least) to the fund's move.
Technical Setup
AI GeneratedThe current price of $92.70 for the Amplify Cybersecurity ETF sits within a technical context where institutional positioning can be inferred through specific market dynamics, though definitive conclusions require broader data integration. While precise crossover points and volume spikes are not explicitly detailed in the provided snapshot, the absence of extreme volatility markers suggests that larger participants may currently be consolidating their positions rather than executing aggressive accumulation or distribution phases typical of major trend reversals. In sectors like technology, where capital flows rapidly based on macroeconomic sentiment, a stable price level often indicates equilibrium between buying pressure from long-term holders and selling interest from profit-taking entities. Volume trends in such environments typically act as the primary gauge for institutional intent; if trading activity were to surge significantly above average while holding near this $92.70 mark, it could signal that sophisticated actors are building a concentrated stance ahead of potential catalysts. Conversely, declining volume alongside price stability might suggest a lack of immediate conviction from major players regarding directional moves. The technical setup implies a state of observation where institutional behavior is likely characterized by waiting for clearer confirmation signals before committing substantial capital to either side of the market. Ultimately, the interplay between price action and implied liquidity at this level reflects a complex balance of risk assessment among large holders. Without explicit volume surges or decisive moving average breaks in the current data view, the most probable interpretation is that institutional players are maintaining existing allocations while monitoring sector-specific developments closely. This neutral stance allows for flexibility as
Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)
How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.
Rolling 60-Day Beta vs S&P 500 (VOO)
How the ETF's sensitivity to market moves changes over time. β > 1 = more volatile than the market.
Yield & Income
Sector Drift Over Time
How HACK’s sector allocation has shifted across snapshots. Use the slider to travel through time.
Active Conviction Tracker
Shares bought and sold between the latest two data snapshots — reveals what the fund manager is actually doing.
AUM & Capital Flow Tracker
Estimated assets under management derived from SEC filings and daily price movements — tracks how the fund's value evolves over time.
Estimated AUM derived from the latest SEC N-PORT filing TNA ($1.90B) scaled by daily price changes. Filing snapshots update when new regulatory filings are published (quarterly for most funds, daily for ARK).
Explore More
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-06-16.
SecuritiesDB is for informational purposes only. Not investment advice.