ETF · Broad Market

MOAT(MOAT)

$101.30
-2.23%
Expense Ratio
$11.6B
Total AUM
Holdings
Inception
Active Share vs VOO
Truly Active
0%20%60%100%
85.7%

AI Look-Through Summary

AI Generated

The portfolio's sector allocation reveals a moderate tilt towards Technology, with a notable presence in Healthcare and Consumer Defensive sectors, which collectively account for over 50% of its holdings. This suggests that MOAT has a significant exposure to growth-oriented industries, while also maintaining a substantial allocation to more defensive sectors.

A closer look at the top holdings reveals a mix of large-cap stocks from various sectors, with no single stock dominating the portfolio. However, some concentration risk exists due to the presence of several mid-to-large cap stocks in similar industries, such as healthcare and consumer staples. Notably, MOAT's sector mix diverges slightly from the broader market, which may be beneficial or unfavorable depending on the prevailing macro environment. A strong growth phase could favor its Technology and Healthcare holdings, while a value-oriented market might benefit from its exposure to more defensive sectors.

Generated by Qwen-32B from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-06-12 08:43:48.244151+00

🔍 Theme Alignment Audit

AI GeneratedPurity: 45/100

The 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 Generated

The 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 Circle

Which 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 ETFAUMExpenseShared StocksWeight Overlap
ITOTiShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF$80B5799.9%
SCHXSCHX$61B5799.9%
SCHBSchwab U.S. Broad Market ETF$37B5799.9%
ACWIiShares MSCI ACWI ETF$28B5597.1%
URTHiShares MSCI World ETF$7B5597.1%

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

Peer through the ETF wrapper to see exactly what you own. Every metric is computed from constituent-level data.

24.1x
Weighted P/E
8.90x
Weighted P/B
$324B
Wtd Avg Market Cap

Weighted metrics calculated based on 87% of fund assets with available data.

Herfindahl-Hirschman Concentration Index

01000200030004000198
Well Diversified
Top 5: 13.7%Top 10: 26.8%

Morningstar-Style Box

Value
Blend
Growth
Large
Mid
Small
Large Blend

Sector & Cap Explorer

Technology21.6%Other19.9%Healthcare16.9%Consumer Defensive15.7%Industrials10.8%Consumer Cyclical7.6%Financial Services4.1%Communication Services2.3%
Visualization Mode

ETF Fundamental Radar

Total Analysis
89% Weight
Market Cap
Large
Risk Profile
Moderate

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%
2%
0–3 Weak
64%
4–6 Average
22%
7–9 Strong

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.

Dividend Safety True-Up

Deterministic
44%
Wtd FCF Payout Ratio
TTM Yield
Very Safe
Dividend Durability
44% of FCF
0% (retains all cash)50%100% (pays out everything)

The 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 67% 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
+13.1%
ETF 1Y Return
+11.6%
Wtd Earnings Growth
+1.5%
Multiple Expansion
Earnings
P/E Inflation

MOAT is up 13.1% over the last 12 months. The underlying weighted earnings growth of its constituents is +11.6%. Price performance is closely aligned with fundamental earnings growth — valuations are roughly unchanged.

Earnings growth = weighted average YoY EPS growth of all constituents (capped at ±500% to limit outlier distortion). Based on 86% of fund weight with earnings data. Not investment advice.

Value Creation Map

ROIC vs WACC

What percentage of MOAT's weight is allocated to companies that create economic value (ROIC > WACC) vs. destroy it?

61% Creators
39% Destroyers
Value Creators (ROIC > WACC)47.1%
Value Destroyers30.2%

Of MOAT's analyzed weight, 61% is invested in companies earning more than their cost of capital — genuine value creators. The remaining 39% consists of companies whose ROIC falls below their WACC, effectively destroying shareholder value with every dollar invested.

ROIC-WACC spread for 77% of fund weight with available 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.

45/ 100
Wtd Avg Passive Ownership13.5%
Most Crowded HoldingCSGP (20.2%)
Least CrowdedNL0009538784 (3.2%)
Coverage89% of fund weight
0 — Low255075100 — Extreme

MOAT has a Passive Crowding Score of 45/100. On average, 13.5% 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 33 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds). Not investment advice.

Under the Hood — Top 15 Constituents

Top 10 Concentration26.8%
#TickerCompanyWeightP/EF-Score
1BMY
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co
Healthcare
2.90%
16.0x9/9
2MDLZ
Mondelez International Inc
Consumer Defensive
2.74%
31.2x5/9
3STZ
Constellation Brands Inc
Consumer Defensive
2.74%
15.5x5/9
4KVUE
Kenvue Inc
Consumer Defensive
2.67%
21.6x6/9
5ABNB
Airbnb Inc
Consumer Cyclical
2.64%
32.7x5/9
6ZTS
Zoetis Inc
Healthcare
2.62%
13.0x6/9
7BFB
Brown-Forman Corp
2.62%
8ZBH
Zimmer Biomet Holdings Inc
Healthcare
2.62%
22.9x4/9
9FTNT
Fortinet Inc
Technology
2.61%
56.9x6/9
10CLX
Clorox Co/The
Consumer Defensive
2.61%
15.7x7/9
11MAS
Masco Corp
2.54%
18.3x6/9
12NVDA
NVIDIA Corp
Technology
2.50%
31.4x4/9
13NL0009538784
NXP Semiconductors NV
2.42%
29.1x5/9
14OTIS
Otis Worldwide Corp
Industrials
2.40%
18.8x5/9
15DHR
Danaher Corp
Healthcare
2.39%
34.8x4/9
The bottom 43 stocks in MOAT account for only 61.0% of the total fund weight.

Historical Holdings Snapshots

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

2026-06-18

15 holdings · 39.0% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1BMY2.90%5,559,989$337.2M
2MDLZ2.74%5,527,242$318.6M
3STZ2.74%2,122,034$318.3M
4KVUE2.67%17,968,034$309.8M
5ABNB2.64%2,428,388$306.7M
6ZTS2.62%2,578,427$304.8M
7BFB2.62%11,495,783$303.9M
8ZBH2.62%3,360,587$303.9M
9FTNT2.61%3,716,240$303.7M
10CLX2.61%2,930,259$303.7M
11MAS2.54%4,890,744$295.3M
12NVDA2.50%1,668,387$291.0M
13NL00095387842.42%1,426,111$280.7M
14OTIS2.40%3,617,541$278.8M
15DHR2.39%1,464,554$277.7M

2026-06-17

15 holdings · 39.0% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1BMY2.90%5,559,989$337.2M
2MDLZ2.74%5,527,242$318.6M
3STZ2.74%2,122,034$318.3M
4KVUE2.67%17,968,034$309.8M
5ABNB2.64%2,428,388$306.7M
6ZTS2.62%2,578,427$304.8M
7BFB2.62%11,495,783$303.9M
8ZBH2.62%3,360,587$303.9M
9FTNT2.61%3,716,240$303.7M
10CLX2.61%2,930,259$303.7M
11MAS2.54%4,890,744$295.3M
12NVDA2.50%1,668,387$291.0M
13NL00095387842.42%1,426,111$280.7M
14OTIS2.40%3,617,541$278.8M
15DHR2.39%1,464,554$277.7M

2026-06-16

15 holdings · 39.0% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1BMY2.90%5,559,989$337.2M
2MDLZ2.74%5,527,242$318.6M
3STZ2.74%2,122,034$318.3M
4KVUE2.67%17,968,034$309.8M
5ABNB2.64%2,428,388$306.7M
6ZTS2.62%2,578,427$304.8M
7BFB2.62%11,495,783$303.9M
8ZBH2.62%3,360,587$303.9M
9FTNT2.61%3,716,240$303.7M
10CLX2.61%2,930,259$303.7M
11MAS2.54%4,890,744$295.3M
12NVDA2.50%1,668,387$291.0M
13NL00095387842.42%1,426,111$280.7M
14OTIS2.40%3,617,541$278.8M
15DHR2.39%1,464,554$277.7M

2026-06-15

15 holdings · 39.0% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1BMY2.90%5,559,989$337.2M
2MDLZ2.74%5,527,242$318.6M
3STZ2.74%2,122,034$318.3M
4KVUE2.67%17,968,034$309.8M
5ABNB2.64%2,428,388$306.7M
6ZTS2.62%2,578,427$304.8M
7BFB2.62%11,495,783$303.9M
8ZBH2.62%3,360,587$303.9M
9FTNT2.61%3,716,240$303.7M
10CLX2.61%2,930,259$303.7M
11MAS2.54%4,890,744$295.3M
12NVDA2.50%1,668,387$291.0M
13NL00095387842.42%1,426,111$280.7M
14OTIS2.40%3,617,541$278.8M
15DHR2.39%1,464,554$277.7M

2026-06-14

15 holdings · 39.0% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1BMY2.90%5,559,989$337.2M
2MDLZ2.74%5,527,242$318.6M
3STZ2.74%2,122,034$318.3M
4KVUE2.67%17,968,034$309.8M
5ABNB2.64%2,428,388$306.7M
6ZTS2.62%2,578,427$304.8M
7BFB2.62%11,495,783$303.9M
8ZBH2.62%3,360,587$303.9M
9FTNT2.61%3,716,240$303.7M
10CLX2.61%2,930,259$303.7M
11MAS2.54%4,890,744$295.3M
12NVDA2.50%1,668,387$291.0M
13NL00095387842.42%1,426,111$280.7M
14OTIS2.40%3,617,541$278.8M
15DHR2.39%1,464,554$277.7M

2026-06-13

15 holdings · 39.0% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1BMY2.90%5,559,989$337.2M
2MDLZ2.74%5,527,242$318.6M
3STZ2.74%2,122,034$318.3M
4KVUE2.67%17,968,034$309.8M
5ABNB2.64%2,428,388$306.7M
6ZTS2.62%2,578,427$304.8M
7BFB2.62%11,495,783$303.9M
8ZBH2.62%3,360,587$303.9M
9FTNT2.61%3,716,240$303.7M
10CLX2.61%2,930,259$303.7M
11MAS2.54%4,890,744$295.3M
12NVDA2.50%1,668,387$291.0M
13NL00095387842.42%1,426,111$280.7M
14OTIS2.40%3,617,541$278.8M
15DHR2.39%1,464,554$277.7M

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

Risk Profile

17.9%
Annual Volatility
0.75
Sharpe (1Y)
0.46
Sharpe (3Y)
-21.4%
Max Drawdown (3Y)
-23.9%
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 MOAT Today?

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

Fund move:-2.23%(2026-06-17)

Top Contributors

+0.057%
+0.043%
+0.042%

Top Detractors

-0.059%
-0.074%

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

Technical Setup

AI Generated

The 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.

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

TTM Yield
30-Day SEC Yield
5Y Div CAGR

Sector Drift Over Time

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

2026-06-1862 snapshots
Technology21.6%
Other19.9%
Healthcare16.9%
Consumer Defensive15.7%
Industrials10.8%
Consumer Cyclical7.6%
Financial Services4.1%
Communication Services2.3%
Real Estate1.1%
Change since 2026-03-31
Industrials
-4.2%
Healthcare
-1.5%
Financial Services
+1.5%
Consumer Defensive
+1.3%
Other
+1.2%
Real Estate
+1.1%
2026-03-312026-06-18

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.

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.

Total Net Assets
$11.63B
Est. AUM Change (90d)
$-509.9M
Price Change (90d)
-4.20%
Filing Snapshots
2
02-0903-0303-2404-1505-0605-2806-17$10.83B$11.56B$12.29B
Estimated AUMTNA Filing Date

Estimated AUM derived from the latest SEC N-PORT filing TNA ($11.63B) 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: 2026-06-17.

SecuritiesDB is for informational purposes only. Not investment advice.