ETF · Broad Market

IWS(IWS)

$164.85
+0.15%
Expense Ratio
$14.2B
Total AUM
Holdings
Inception
Active Share vs VOO
Moderate
0%20%60%100%
53.2%

AI Look-Through Summary

AI Generated

The portfolio's sector allocation is heavily skewed towards Technology, which accounts for approximately 60% of the Other category, with Energy and Industrials making up smaller portions. The remaining sectors are Consumer Cyclical and Other, each constituting less than 1%. This suggests a significant focus on growth-oriented industries.

The top holdings are concentrated in semiconductor and technology-related companies, including SNDK and WDC, which together account for around 4% of the portfolio's weight. The presence of these names may indicate an overweight to the sector, particularly within the Technology space. Compared to the broader market, this ETF appears to have a more pronounced exposure to Energy, Industrials, and Consumer Cyclical sectors. A favorable environment would likely be one with strong demand for technology products and stable energy prices, while a downturn in these areas could pose challenges for the portfolio.

Generated by Qwen-32B from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-06-28 08:23:42.673494+00

🔍 Theme Alignment Audit

AI GeneratedPurity: 45/100

The investment theme implied by the ticker IWS suggests a focus on industrial wiring or telecommunications infrastructure, yet the actual holdings reveal a significant disconnect with this specific narrative. While several top positions such as Corning Incorporated and CommScope are relevant to fiber optics and connectivity materials, the portfolio includes substantial weights in unrelated sectors like energy and financial services that dilute thematic purity. The inclusion of major diversified technology giants alongside industrial components indicates an over-reliance on broad-market names rather than a strict adherence to a narrow infrastructure or wiring theme, suggesting the fund may be using recognizable large-cap stocks to stabilize returns instead of maintaining rigorous thematic focus.

Sector coherence appears weak given the fragmented nature of the top ten holdings across five distinct industries, which challenges the notion of a unified industrial strategy. The technology sector accounts for nearly half of the top ten weightings, while energy and real estate represent only marginal exposure, creating an inconsistent picture where core themes are overshadowed by unrelated mega-cap diversification. With a low concentration metric among the largest positions, the fund lacks the distinctiveness expected from a specialized thematic vehicle and closely mirrors the composition of broad market indices rather than offering genuine differentiation based on its stated industrial focus.

AI analysis of holdings alignment vs fund theme. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-21 15:14:07.530098+00

🏢 Sector Analysis

AI Generated

The sector allocation of IWS presents a highly concentrated profile within the technology space, where it accounts for nearly half of the fund's total exposure. Despite holding only four positions in this category, these holdings collectively form the dominant pillar of the portfolio, indicating an investment thesis heavily reliant on specific large-cap information technology names rather than broad-based sector diversification. The remaining sectors, including energy and industrials, contribute minimally to overall weightings, suggesting that the fund's performance will be disproportionately driven by the fortunes of its top-tier tech constituents while offering negligible protection or balance from other economic drivers.

This structural setup reveals a significant concentration risk centered on both individual stock volatility and sector-specific headwinds. With the top ten holdings representing over nine percent of total assets, the portfolio lacks the breadth typically associated with diversified equity strategies, meaning that adverse movements in just one or two positions could materially impact overall returns. The reliance on a narrow set of companies implies an active selection approach rather than passive indexing, where manager conviction is placed entirely on these specific issuers across disparate industries like semiconductors and industrial components.

Factor tilts evident from the holding composition point toward large-cap value characteristics given the prominence of established manufacturers and financial institutions alongside technology firms. The presence of holdings such as CMI in industrials and BK in financial services suggests an exposure to companies with tangible assets or stable cash flows, yet these are overshadowed by the sheer weight of the tech sector. Ultimately, the fund's design prioritizes deep conviction in a select group of large enterprises over broad market participation, creating a return profile that mirrors the specific idiosyncrasies and cyclicality of its top holdings rather than general equity trends.

AI-generated sector analysis from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-21 18:06:47.696387+00

Flow Driver Analysis

2-Step Circle

Which larger ETFs share IWS's holdings — and mechanically drive its price through index rebalancing flows?

Approximately 41% of IWS's weight flows through these larger ETFs

Driver ETFAUMExpenseShared StocksWeight Overlap
VONVVONV$18B1010.3%
VTIVanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares$2.1T0.03%1010.3%
VOOVanguard S&P 500 ETF$1.5T0.03%1010.3%
VTVT$80B1010.3%
ONEOONEO$25M1010.3%

10% of IWS's portfolio by weight is also held by VONV. When VONV receives inflows, it mechanically buys these shared stocks — dragging IWS's NAV along regardless of any thematic or sector catalyst. Combined, the top 5 overlapping ETFs control exposure to 52% ofIWS'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.

34.3x
Weighted P/E
14.96x
Weighted P/B
$163B
Wtd Avg Market Cap

Weighted metrics calculated based on 94% of fund assets with available data.

Herfindahl-Hirschman Concentration Index

0100020003000400013
Well Diversified
Top 5: 6.9%Top 10: 10.3%

Morningstar-Style Box

Value
Blend
Growth
Large
Mid
Small
Large Growth

Sector & Cap Explorer

Technology58.4%Energy19.4%Other8.0%Industrials8.0%Consumer Cyclical6.1%
Visualization Mode

ETF Fundamental Radar

Total Analysis
9% Weight
Market Cap
Large
Risk Profile
Low Risk

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

↑ Weight (%)100%80%60%40%20%
1%
0–3 Weak
6%
4–6 Average
3%
7–9 Strong

Based on 9% of fund weight with Piotroski data.

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

Deterministic
36%
Wtd FCF Payout Ratio
1.10%
TTM Yield
Very Safe
Dividend Durability
36% of FCF
0% (retains all cash)50%100% (pays out everything)

The dividend-paying companies inside IWS collectively pay out 36% 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 6% 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

Proprietary
+24.0%
ETF 1Y Return
+47.2%
Wtd Earnings Growth
-23.2%
Multiple Contraction
Earnings

IWS is up 24.0% over the last 12 months. The underlying weighted earnings growth of its constituents is +47.2%. Despite earnings growth, valuations have contracted by 23.2% — 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 9% of fund weight with earnings data. Not investment advice.

Passive Crowding Score

MODERATE

How much of each constituent's market cap is structurally locked in passive ETFs — a proxy for liquidity fragility during sell-offs.

42/ 100
Wtd Avg Passive Ownership12.6%
Most Crowded HoldingF (19.2%)
Least CrowdedSNDK (8.3%)
Coverage10% of fund weight
0 — Low255075100 — Extreme

IWS has a Passive Crowding Score of 42/100. On average, 12.6% of the market capitalization of IWS'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 24 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds). Not investment advice.

Under the Hood — Top 10 Constituents

Top 10 Concentration10.3%
#TickerCompanyWeightP/EF-Score
1SNDK
SanDisk Corp Ordinary Shares
Technology
2.25%
71.4x5/9
2WDC
Western Digital Corp
Technology
1.68%
35.1x6/9
3GLW
Corning Inc
Technology
1.31%
106.3x7/9
4BNY
Bank of New York Mellon Corp
0.83%
17.3x
5CMI
Cummins Inc
Industrials
0.83%
35.6x5/9
6CIEN
Ciena Corp
Technology
0.76%
158.8x7/9
7MPC
Marathon Petroleum Corp
Energy
0.69%
16.7x7/9
8VLO
Valero Energy Corp
Energy
0.69%
18.9x6/9
9F
Ford Motor Co
Consumer Cyclical
0.63%
2/9
10PSX
Phillips 66
Energy
0.61%
16.9x6/9

Historical Holdings Snapshots

Browse how IWS’s holdings have changed across SEC filing dates. Showing top holdings per snapshot.

2026-07-01

10 holdings · 10.3% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1SNDK2.25%
2WDC1.68%
3GLW1.31%
4BNY0.83%
5CMI0.83%
6CIEN0.76%
7MPC0.69%
8VLO0.69%
9F0.63%
10PSX0.61%

2026-06-30

10 holdings · 10.3% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1SNDK2.25%
2WDC1.68%
3GLW1.31%
4BNY0.83%
5CMI0.83%
6CIEN0.76%
7MPC0.69%
8VLO0.69%
9F0.63%
10PSX0.61%

2026-06-29

10 holdings · 10.3% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1SNDK2.25%
2WDC1.68%
3GLW1.31%
4BNY0.83%
5CMI0.83%
6CIEN0.76%
7MPC0.69%
8VLO0.69%
9F0.63%
10PSX0.61%

2026-06-28

10 holdings · 10.3% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1SNDK2.25%
2WDC1.68%
3GLW1.31%
4BNY0.83%
5CMI0.83%
6CIEN0.76%
7MPC0.69%
8VLO0.69%
9F0.63%
10PSX0.61%

2026-06-27

10 holdings · 10.3% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1SNDK2.25%
2WDC1.68%
3GLW1.31%
4BNY0.83%
5CMI0.83%
6CIEN0.76%
7MPC0.69%
8VLO0.69%
9F0.63%
10PSX0.61%

2026-06-26

10 holdings · 10.3% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1SNDK2.25%
2WDC1.68%
3GLW1.31%
4BNY0.83%
5CMI0.83%
6CIEN0.76%
7MPC0.69%
8VLO0.69%
9F0.63%
10PSX0.61%

Source: SEC filings and fund provider disclosures. Shows last 6 snapshot dates, top 15 holdings per date by weight.

Risk Profile

17.2%
Annual Volatility
1.45
Sharpe (1Y)
0.82
Sharpe (3Y)
-20.6%
Max Drawdown (3Y)
-21.2%
Max Drawdown (5Y)

Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Computed from 1,200+ trading days with 5% risk-free rate.

Price Chart with Moving Averages

Loading chart...

What Drove IWS Today?

Daily return attribution — which holdings contributed most (and least) to the fund's move.

Fund move:+0.15%(2026-07-01)

Top Contributors

+0.245%
+0.026%
+0.018%

Top Detractors

-0.015%
-0.018%
-0.034%

Attribution = holding weight × stock daily return. Only the top contributors and detractors are shown.

Technical Setup

AI Generated

The current trading level of $158.62 for IWS sits at a specific point in its price trajectory, yet the provided data lacks the necessary historical context to assess drawdown depth or volatility regimes effectively. Without information on recent peak-to-trough declines or standard deviation metrics, it is impossible to determine if this price represents a structural consolidation following a significant correction or merely short-term noise within an established trend. The absence of fundamental backdrop details further obscures whether any observed momentum stems from underlying business value appreciation or speculative capital flows detached from earnings realities. Consequently, the technical setup remains ambiguous regarding risk dynamics because the relationship between current valuation and historical support levels cannot be quantified with the available inputs. A price alone does not reveal if upward movement is supported by resilient volume profiles or fragile order imbalances that could reverse swiftly upon minor catalysts. Investors must evaluate whether this level acts as a durable floor for long-term holders or a precarious pivot point susceptible to rapid erosion, noting that definitive conclusions require additional data points regarding market breadth and sector performance relative to the broader economic environment.

Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)

How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.

Loading drawdown chart...

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.

Loading beta chart...
Rolling Beta Market (β = 1.0)

Yield & Income

1.10%
TTM Yield
30-Day SEC Yield
5Y Div CAGR

Sector Drift Over Time

How IWS’s sector allocation has shifted across snapshots. Use the slider to travel through time.

2026-07-0176 snapshots
Technology58.4%
Energy19.4%
Other8.0%
Industrials8.0%
Consumer Cyclical6.1%
Change since 2026-03-30
Technology
+19.9%
Industrials
-10.9%
Financial Services
-9.8%
Communication Services
-8.4%
Other
+8.0%
Consumer Cyclical
+6.1%
2026-03-302026-07-01

Active Conviction Tracker

Shares bought and sold between the latest two data snapshots — reveals what the fund manager is actually doing.

No position changes detected between snapshots.

Explore More

Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-07-01.

SecuritiesDB is for informational purposes only. Not investment advice.