MOAT(MOAT)
AI Look-Through Summary
AI GeneratedThe MOAT ETF maintains a substantial asset base of $11.6 billion, reflecting significant investor interest in its underlying strategy targeting companies with enduring competitive advantages. The portfolio's sector allocation reveals a pronounced tilt toward Technology at 21.1%, followed closely by Healthcare at 18.6% and Industrials at 15.1%. This distribution suggests the fund is heavily weighted within industries characterized by high capital intensity, regulatory moats, or proprietary technology ecosystems. Consumer Defensive and Consumer Cyclical sectors round out the exposure at roughly equal parts of 14.5% and 7.6%, indicating a deliberate inclusion of established brands alongside growth-oriented firms rather than a singular focus on one industry vertical.
Concentration analysis highlights that no single holding exceeds 3%, with the top ten positions each representing approximately 2.5% to 2.8% of total assets. Notable names such as HII, UPS, and BMY anchor the Industrials and Healthcare segments, while CRM, ADBE, and IEX provide significant exposure within Technology. The presence of GEHC alongside DHR underscores a specific focus on healthcare infrastructure and diagnostics rather than just pharmaceuticals or biotechnology. This relatively dispersed structure among large-cap leaders mitigates idiosyncratic risk associated with any single company's performance while maintaining meaningful stakes in firms deemed to possess structural pricing power.
Geographically, the current data snapshot does not explicitly delineate regional weights; however, the composition of top holdings like HII and UPS implies a heavy reliance on U.S.-based corporations given their primary operational markets. The blend of defensive consumer staples with cyclical industrial and tech giants creates an asset profile that seeks to balance stability from entrenched brands against growth potential in innovation-driven sectors. Investors examining this fund would observe a strategy designed to capture returns from businesses capable of sustaining margins over long periods, though the specific geographic diversification beyond North America remains undefined by these metrics alone.
Generated by Qwen-32B from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-23 20:38:04.385377+00
🔍 Theme Alignment Audit
AI GeneratedPurity: 45/100The thematic alignment of the MOAT ETF with its implied focus on durable competitive advantages is partially obscured by a broad sector distribution that mirrors general large-cap market exposure rather than a concentrated niche. While holdings like Home Depot, Lowe's, and Costco are often cited as possessing wide economic moats due to their scale and pricing power, the portfolio includes significant positions in companies such as Abbott Laboratories and UnitedHealth Group within healthcare, alongside diversified industrial giants like Caterpillar and General Electric. The presence of these mega-cap stocks across various sectors suggests a strategy that relies heavily on established market leaders rather than strictly adhering to a specific defensive or value-oriented theme. This reliance on broad-market names may indicate an approach designed to stabilize returns through familiarity with well-known entities, potentially at the expense of maintaining a tight thematic focus on unique competitive barriers.
Sector coherence presents mixed signals regarding the fund's differentiation from standard index benchmarks. The technology sector comprises over 21% of assets, led by major software and hardware firms, which is substantial for an ETF typically associated with defensive or value characteristics where such exposure might be lower relative to growth indices. Conversely, consumer defensives hold a significant weight at nearly 15%, supported by staples like Procter & Gamble and Coca-Cola, yet this allocation does not fully isolate the fund from broader market movements given its heavy overlap with dominant players in technology and healthcare as well. The top-ten concentration of roughly 26% indicates moderate diversification without extreme idiosyncratic risk, but the lack of a singular sector dominance makes it difficult to distinguish the portfolio's performance drivers from those of a broad large-cap index like the S&P 500. Ultimately, while individual holdings possess recognized competitive strengths, the aggregate structure reflects a wide net cast across multiple industries rather than a deep dive into a single thematic strategy.
AI analysis of holdings alignment vs fund theme. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-23 04:50:32.029029+00
🏢 Sector Analysis
AI GeneratedThe sector allocation of MOAT reveals a distinct preference for established, cash-generative industries often associated with economic moats rather than high-growth or speculative sectors. Technology and Healthcare collectively account for nearly 40% of the portfolio, indicating an emphasis on firms with significant competitive advantages in software, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals. This heavy weighting suggests a thesis centered around long-term durability and pricing power within these mature markets. The substantial exposure to Industrials and Consumer Defensive sectors further reinforces this strategy by including companies that typically offer stable earnings streams and essential services, thereby potentially dampening volatility compared to more cyclical peers.
Concentration risk appears moderate but notable given the top-10 holdings represent 26.4% of assets under management. While no single position dominates, the presence of five distinct leaders each holding approximately 2.7% highlights a strategy that avoids deep diversification in favor of quality over quantity. This structure implies the fund manager prioritizes conviction in specific market leaders within their chosen sectors rather than spreading capital thinly across many smaller entities. The relatively low allocations to Financial Services and Communication Services, combined with minimal exposure to Consumer Cyclical beyond the top tier, suggests a deliberate avoidance of highly leveraged or consumer-dependent businesses that may be more susceptible to economic downturns.
Factor tilts evident in this allocation point strongly toward value characteristics such as high return on equity and consistent free cash flow generation. By favoring sectors like Industrials and Healthcare with large-cap incumbents, the portfolio implicitly targets companies that have survived long competitive battles and possess entrenched market positions. This approach likely results in lower beta relative to a broad technology-heavy index but may limit upside potential during periods of rapid innovation or consumer spending surges. The data reflects a conservative yet targeted strategy aimed at capturing steady compounding returns from businesses with durable advantages, balancing growth opportunities against the need for defensive stability across various economic cycles.
AI-generated sector analysis from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-23 17:10:58.364271+00
Flow Driver Analysis
2-Step CircleWhich larger ETFs share MOAT's holdings — and mechanically drive its price through index rebalancing flows?
Approximately 100% of MOAT's weight flows through these larger ETFs
| Driver ETF | AUM | Expense | Shared Stocks | Weight Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ITOTiShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF | $80B | — | 54 | 100.0% |
| SCHXSCHX | $61B | — | 54 | 100.0% |
| SCHBSchwab U.S. Broad Market ETF | $37B | — | 54 | 100.0% |
| ACWIiShares MSCI ACWI ETF | $28B | — | 52 | 96.0% |
| URTHiShares MSCI World ETF | $7B | — | 52 | 96.0% |
100% of MOAT's portfolio by weight is also held by ITOT, which commands 7× more assets under management. When ITOT receives inflows, it mechanically buys these shared stocks — dragging MOAT's NAV along regardless of any thematic or sector catalyst. Combined, the top 5 overlapping ETFs control exposure to 100% ofMOAT'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
Replaces $249/yr MorningstarPeer through the ETF wrapper to see exactly what you own. Every metric is computed from constituent-level data.
Weighted metrics calculated based on 88% 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
Based on 89% 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. Data that Vanguard and BlackRock don't surface.
Dividend Safety True-Up
DeterministicThe dividend-paying companies inside MOAT collectively pay out 44% 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 68% 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
ProprietaryMOAT is up 16.6% over the last 12 months. The underlying weighted earnings growth of its constituents is +8.8%. The remaining +7.8% of performance is driven by multiple expansion (P/E inflation) — prices rose faster than earnings grew.
Earnings growth = weighted average YoY EPS growth of all constituents (capped at ±500% to limit outlier distortion). Based on 89% of fund weight with earnings data. Not investment advice.
Value Creation Map
ROIC vs WACCWhat percentage of MOAT's weight is allocated to companies that create economic value (ROIC > WACC) vs. destroy it?
Of MOAT's analyzed weight, 54% is invested in companies earning more than their cost of capital — genuine value creators. The remaining 46% consists of companies whose ROIC falls below their WACC, effectively destroying shareholder value with every dollar invested.
ROIC-WACC spread for 79% 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.
MOAT has a Passive Crowding Score of 46/100. On average, 13.9% of the market capitalization of MOAT'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 25 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 | HII | Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc Industrials | 2.80% | 20.0x | 8/9 |
| 2 | ABNB | Airbnb Inc Consumer Cyclical | 2.72% | 32.9x | 5/9 |
| 3 | EL | Estee Lauder Cos Inc/The Consumer Defensive | 2.72% | — | 4/9 |
| 4 | BMY | Bristol-Myers Squibb Co Healthcare | 2.70% | 16.0x | 9/9 |
| 5 | UPS | United Parcel Service Inc Industrials | 2.70% | 17.3x | 6/9 |
| 6 | DHR | Danaher Corp Healthcare | 2.67% | 35.5x | 4/9 |
| 7 | IEX | IDEX Corp | 2.57% | 29.1x | 8/9 |
| 8 | CRM | Salesforce Inc Technology | 2.54% | 22.1x | 6/9 |
| 9 | GEHC | GE HealthCare Technologies Inc Healthcare | 2.53% | 14.9x | 3/9 |
| 10 | ADBE | Adobe Inc Technology | 2.48% | 15.1x | 7/9 |
| 11 | OTIS | Otis Worldwide Corp Industrials | 2.47% | 18.8x | 5/9 |
| 12 | 89400J107 | TransUnion | 2.44% | — | — |
| 13 | FTNT | Fortinet Inc Technology | 2.42% | 53.5x | 6/9 |
| 14 | KVUE | Kenvue Inc Consumer Defensive | 2.42% | 20.6x | 6/9 |
| 15 | BA | Boeing Co/The Industrials | 2.42% | 91.7x | 7/9 |
Historical Holdings Snapshots
Browse how MOAT’s holdings have changed across SEC filing dates. Showing top holdings per snapshot.
2026-05-24
15 holdings · 38.6% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HII | 2.80% | 1,063,784 | $361.8M |
| 2 | ABNB | 2.72% | 2,587,361 | $351.2M |
| 3 | EL | 2.72% | 3,352,553 | $351.1M |
| 4 | BMY | 2.70% | 6,466,940 | $348.8M |
| 5 | UPS | 2.70% | 3,511,568 | $348.3M |
| 6 | DHR | 2.67% | 1,504,364 | $344.4M |
| 7 | IEX | 2.57% | 1,868,336 | $332.5M |
| 8 | CRM | 2.54% | 1,237,541 | $327.8M |
| 9 | GEHC | 2.53% | 3,978,754 | $326.3M |
| 10 | ADBE | 2.48% | 916,127 | $320.6M |
| 11 | OTIS | 2.47% | 3,650,946 | $318.9M |
| 12 | 89400J107 | 2.44% | 3,672,830 | $314.9M |
| 13 | FTNT | 2.42% | 3,935,862 | $312.5M |
| 14 | KVUE | 2.42% | 18,102,141 | $312.3M |
| 15 | BA | 2.42% | 1,437,318 | $312.1M |
2026-05-23
15 holdings · 38.6% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HII | 2.80% | 1,063,784 | $361.8M |
| 2 | ABNB | 2.72% | 2,587,361 | $351.2M |
| 3 | EL | 2.72% | 3,352,553 | $351.1M |
| 4 | BMY | 2.70% | 6,466,940 | $348.8M |
| 5 | UPS | 2.70% | 3,511,568 | $348.3M |
| 6 | DHR | 2.67% | 1,504,364 | $344.4M |
| 7 | IEX | 2.57% | 1,868,336 | $332.5M |
| 8 | CRM | 2.54% | 1,237,541 | $327.8M |
| 9 | GEHC | 2.53% | 3,978,754 | $326.3M |
| 10 | ADBE | 2.48% | 916,127 | $320.6M |
| 11 | OTIS | 2.47% | 3,650,946 | $318.9M |
| 12 | 89400J107 | 2.44% | 3,672,830 | $314.9M |
| 13 | FTNT | 2.42% | 3,935,862 | $312.5M |
| 14 | KVUE | 2.42% | 18,102,141 | $312.3M |
| 15 | BA | 2.42% | 1,437,318 | $312.1M |
2026-05-22
15 holdings · 38.6% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HII | 2.80% | 1,063,784 | $361.8M |
| 2 | ABNB | 2.72% | 2,587,361 | $351.2M |
| 3 | EL | 2.72% | 3,352,553 | $351.1M |
| 4 | BMY | 2.70% | 6,466,940 | $348.8M |
| 5 | UPS | 2.70% | 3,511,568 | $348.3M |
| 6 | DHR | 2.67% | 1,504,364 | $344.4M |
| 7 | IEX | 2.57% | 1,868,336 | $332.5M |
| 8 | CRM | 2.54% | 1,237,541 | $327.8M |
| 9 | GEHC | 2.53% | 3,978,754 | $326.3M |
| 10 | ADBE | 2.48% | 916,127 | $320.6M |
| 11 | OTIS | 2.47% | 3,650,946 | $318.9M |
| 12 | 89400J107 | 2.44% | 3,672,830 | $314.9M |
| 13 | FTNT | 2.42% | 3,935,862 | $312.5M |
| 14 | KVUE | 2.42% | 18,102,141 | $312.3M |
| 15 | BA | 2.42% | 1,437,318 | $312.1M |
2026-05-21
15 holdings · 38.6% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HII | 2.80% | 1,063,784 | $361.8M |
| 2 | ABNB | 2.72% | 2,587,361 | $351.2M |
| 3 | EL | 2.72% | 3,352,553 | $351.1M |
| 4 | BMY | 2.70% | 6,466,940 | $348.8M |
| 5 | UPS | 2.70% | 3,511,568 | $348.3M |
| 6 | DHR | 2.67% | 1,504,364 | $344.4M |
| 7 | IEX | 2.57% | 1,868,336 | $332.5M |
| 8 | CRM | 2.54% | 1,237,541 | $327.8M |
| 9 | GEHC | 2.53% | 3,978,754 | $326.3M |
| 10 | ADBE | 2.48% | 916,127 | $320.6M |
| 11 | OTIS | 2.47% | 3,650,946 | $318.9M |
| 12 | 89400J107 | 2.44% | 3,672,830 | $314.9M |
| 13 | FTNT | 2.42% | 3,935,862 | $312.5M |
| 14 | KVUE | 2.42% | 18,102,141 | $312.3M |
| 15 | BA | 2.42% | 1,437,318 | $312.1M |
2026-05-20
15 holdings · 38.6% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HII | 2.80% | 1,063,784 | $361.8M |
| 2 | ABNB | 2.72% | 2,587,361 | $351.2M |
| 3 | EL | 2.72% | 3,352,553 | $351.1M |
| 4 | BMY | 2.70% | 6,466,940 | $348.8M |
| 5 | UPS | 2.70% | 3,511,568 | $348.3M |
| 6 | DHR | 2.67% | 1,504,364 | $344.4M |
| 7 | IEX | 2.57% | 1,868,336 | $332.5M |
| 8 | CRM | 2.54% | 1,237,541 | $327.8M |
| 9 | GEHC | 2.53% | 3,978,754 | $326.3M |
| 10 | ADBE | 2.48% | 916,127 | $320.6M |
| 11 | OTIS | 2.47% | 3,650,946 | $318.9M |
| 12 | 89400J107 | 2.44% | 3,672,830 | $314.9M |
| 13 | FTNT | 2.42% | 3,935,862 | $312.5M |
| 14 | KVUE | 2.42% | 18,102,141 | $312.3M |
| 15 | BA | 2.42% | 1,437,318 | $312.1M |
2026-05-19
15 holdings · 38.6% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HII | 2.80% | 1,063,784 | $361.8M |
| 2 | ABNB | 2.72% | 2,587,361 | $351.2M |
| 3 | EL | 2.72% | 3,352,553 | $351.1M |
| 4 | BMY | 2.70% | 6,466,940 | $348.8M |
| 5 | UPS | 2.70% | 3,511,568 | $348.3M |
| 6 | DHR | 2.67% | 1,504,364 | $344.4M |
| 7 | IEX | 2.57% | 1,868,336 | $332.5M |
| 8 | CRM | 2.54% | 1,237,541 | $327.8M |
| 9 | GEHC | 2.53% | 3,978,754 | $326.3M |
| 10 | ADBE | 2.48% | 916,127 | $320.6M |
| 11 | OTIS | 2.47% | 3,650,946 | $318.9M |
| 12 | 89400J107 | 2.44% | 3,672,830 | $314.9M |
| 13 | FTNT | 2.42% | 3,935,862 | $312.5M |
| 14 | KVUE | 2.42% | 18,102,141 | $312.3M |
| 15 | BA | 2.42% | 1,437,318 | $312.1M |
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.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
What Drove MOAT Today?
Daily return attribution — which holdings contributed most (and least) to the fund's move.
Technical Setup
AI GeneratedThe current price level of $97.64 for MOAT presents a neutral snapshot without immediate context regarding recent momentum shifts or trend direction, as no historical data points such as moving averages, volume profiles, or relative strength indicators are available to define the trajectory. In isolation, this single figure cannot reveal whether the asset is experiencing structural growth driven by fundamental earnings expansion or if it represents a fragile consolidation phase susceptible to sharp reversals. Without knowing the depth of recent drawdowns or the prevailing volatility regime surrounding this price point, it remains impossible to assess the resilience of any existing momentum against potential market stressors. A complete technical assessment requires correlating current valuation with broader fundamental backdrops and risk metrics that are absent from the provided dataset. For instance, determining if a specific price level acts as a support zone or resistance barrier depends entirely on prior trading ranges which have not been supplied here. Consequently, any attempt to characterize the stability of this position would be speculative rather than evidence-based. The absence of volatility measures prevents an evaluation of how sensitive the stock might be to external shocks, while missing drawdown data obscures whether current levels reflect a recovery from significant losses or steady accumulation. Ultimately, the technical picture remains incomplete without additional time-series data that could illuminate the interplay between price action and risk dynamics. Investors must await further information regarding trend integrity, volume confirmation, and macroeconomic influences before forming conclusions about the asset's future performance potential or downside protection capabilities at this specific juncture.
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 MOAT’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 ($13.03B) 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: 2026-06-02.
SecuritiesDB is for informational purposes only. Not investment advice.