IGV(IGV)
AI Look-Through Summary
AI GeneratedThe portfolio's sector allocation is heavily skewed towards Technology, with over 55% of assets concentrated in this area, while Communication Services accounts for less than 5%. This suggests that the fund has a strong bias towards growth-oriented sectors and companies. The weighted P/E ratio of 44.1x indicates that the portfolio is trading at a premium valuation compared to the broader market, which may be a concern for investors seeking value opportunities.
The top holdings are dominated by a few large-cap technology names, with Palo Alto Networks (PANW) accounting for over 10% of the fund's assets. Microsoft (MSFT) and other familiar tech giants also feature prominently in the top 10 list. The sector mix is noticeably different from the broader market, which may make this portfolio more sensitive to changes in the technology sector or macroeconomic trends that favor growth stocks. A favorable environment for this portfolio would likely involve continued strong demand for cloud computing, cybersecurity, and other related services, while a downturn in these areas could be challenging for investors holding this fund.
Generated by Qwen-32B from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-07-14 08:41:28.895926+00
🔍 Theme Alignment Audit
AI GeneratedPurity: 95/100The investment theme implied by the IGV name, which typically denotes an exposure to artificial intelligence and software innovation, demonstrates a strong alignment with its actual portfolio composition. The top ten holdings are almost exclusively comprised of leading technology companies known for their significant roles in cloud computing, enterprise software, and data analytics sectors. Notable constituents such as Microsoft, Oracle, ServiceNow, and Palantir represent core drivers within the broader AI narrative, reinforcing the fund's stated focus rather than diluting it with unrelated assets. There is no evidence of over-reliance on broad-market mega-cap stocks that lack a specific thematic connection; instead, every major holding appears to possess direct relevance to software-defined workflows or intelligent systems.
Sector coherence remains high, as technology constitutes nearly 55% of the portfolio, which mirrors the concentrated nature usually expected from a specialized theme fund. The minimal allocation to communication services further underscores a deliberate strategy to maintain focus on pure-play software and infrastructure providers rather than diversifying into unrelated industries. While the top-ten concentration exceeds 59%, this level of weighting is consistent with funds targeting specific high-growth niches where market leadership is critical for thematic exposure. Consequently, the fund appears genuinely differentiated from broad market indices by its heavy skew toward companies directly involved in software innovation and digital transformation, ensuring that capital remains tightly aligned with the intended investment thesis without significant deviation into unrelated sectors.
AI analysis of holdings alignment vs fund theme. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-24 06:45:21.650993+00
🏢 Sector Analysis
AI GeneratedThe IGV ETF exhibits a pronounced sector bias toward the Technology industry, which accounts for over half of its total portfolio weight through nine distinct holdings. This heavy allocation suggests an investment thesis centered on exposure to software and hardware innovators rather than a broad-based market representation or diversification across defensive sectors like utilities or consumer staples. The presence of Communication Services at less than five percent further reinforces that the fund is not attempting to capture media or telecommunications growth alongside its primary tech focus, indicating a specialized mandate likely targeting enterprise digital transformation themes.
Concentration risk appears elevated given that the top ten holdings comprise nearly 60% of assets under management, with the largest single position in Microsoft representing almost nine percent alone. The dominance of technology within this concentrated group is further illustrated by the fact that all five of the largest individual positions are tech giants including Oracle, Palantir, Salesforce, and Palo Alto Networks. Such a structure implies significant sensitivity to sector-specific headwinds or regulatory shifts affecting enterprise software and cybersecurity, as performance will be heavily dictated by the fortunes of these few large-cap names rather than a diversified basket of smaller companies across various industries.
From a factor tilt perspective, the portfolio leans heavily toward quality and momentum factors typically associated with established market leaders in the technology space. The reliance on nine holdings to generate over 54% of returns suggests an active selection process favoring specific firms perceived as having strong moats or growth trajectories within the software ecosystem, rather than passive indexing. This approach inherently trades off diversification benefits for potential outperformance if the identified large-cap names continue their upward trajectory, while simultaneously exposing investors to amplified volatility should these leaders underperform relative to the broader market index.
AI-generated sector analysis from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-08 14:07:47.460845+00
Flow Driver Analysis
2-Step CircleWhich larger ETFs share IGV's holdings — and mechanically drive its price through index rebalancing flows?
Approximately 100% of IGV's weight flows through these larger ETFs
| Driver ETF | AUM | Expense | Shared Stocks | Weight Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VOOVanguard S&P 500 ETF | $1.5T | 0.03% | 10 | 60.7% |
| SCHXSCHX | $61B | — | 10 | 60.7% |
| IWFiShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | $112B | — | 10 | 60.7% |
| ITOTiShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF | $80B | — | 10 | 60.7% |
| ACWIiShares MSCI ACWI ETF | $28B | — | 10 | 60.7% |
61% of IGV's portfolio by weight is also held by VOO, which commands 145× more assets under management. When VOO receives inflows, it mechanically buys these shared stocks — dragging IGV's NAV along regardless of any thematic or sector catalyst. Combined, the top 5 overlapping ETFs control exposure to 100% ofIGV'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 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 61% 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
DeterministicThe dividend-paying companies inside IGV collectively pay out 25% 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 13% 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
ProprietaryIGV is down 16.4% over the last 12 months. The underlying weighted earnings growth of its constituents is +46.3%. Despite earnings growth, valuations have contracted by 62.8% — 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 53% of fund weight with earnings data. Not investment advice.
Value Creation Map
ROIC vs WACCWhat percentage of IGV's weight is allocated to companies that create economic value (ROIC > WACC) vs. destroy it?
Of IGV's analyzed weight, 64% is invested in companies earning more than their cost of capital — genuine value creators. The remaining 36% consists of companies whose ROIC falls below their WACC, effectively destroying shareholder value with every dollar invested.
ROIC-WACC spread for 50% of fund weight with available data. Not investment advice.
Concentration Risk Monitor
ELEVATEDIGV's top holding PANW at 10.4% is above the 8% elevated-concentration threshold. The effective number of stocks is 24 vs. the actual count of 10.
Effective # of Stocks = 1 / HHI (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index). Variance share approximated as w² / Σw². 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.
IGV has a Passive Crowding Score of 40/100. On average, 12.0% of the market capitalization of IGV'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 31 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds). Not investment advice.
Under the Hood — Top 10 Constituents
| # | Ticker | Company | Weight | P/E | F-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PANW | Palo Alto Networks Inc Technology | 10.37% | 311.9x | 4/9 |
| 2 | MSFT | Microsoft Corp Technology | 8.07% | 23.4x | 5/9 |
| 3 | PLTR | Palantir Technologies Inc Ordinary Shares - Class A Technology | 7.70% | 148.7x | 8/9 |
| 4 | CRWD | CrowdStrike Holdings Inc Class A Technology | 7.28% | — | 4/9 |
| 5 | ORCL | Oracle Corp Technology | 6.26% | 21.3x | 5/9 |
| 6 | CRM | Salesforce Inc Technology | 4.81% | 20.0x | 6/9 |
| 7 | APP | AppLovin Corp Ordinary Shares - Class A Communication Services | 4.76% | 37.7x | 9/9 |
| 8 | CDNS | Cadence Design Systems Inc Technology | 3.91% | 84.6x | 7/9 |
| 9 | NOW | ServiceNow Inc Technology | 3.87% | 61.8x | 4/9 |
| 10 | FTNT | Fortinet Inc Technology | 3.62% | 62.4x | 6/9 |
Historical Holdings Snapshots
Browse how IGV’s holdings have changed across SEC filing dates. Showing top holdings per snapshot.
2026-07-18
10 holdings · 60.7% tracked weight2026-07-17
10 holdings · 60.7% tracked weight2026-07-16
10 holdings · 60.7% tracked weight2026-07-15
10 holdings · 60.7% tracked weight2026-07-14
10 holdings · 60.7% tracked weightSource: 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 IGV Today?
Daily return attribution — which holdings contributed most (and least) to the fund's move.
Technical Setup
AI GeneratedThe current trading level of $92.48 for IGV presents a snapshot where price action exists in isolation from broader volatility metrics or drawdown data typically required to assess structural integrity. Without concurrent information on recent peak-to-trough declines, standard deviation bands, or fundamental earnings trends, it is impossible to determine whether the observed momentum reflects deep-rooted value realization or a precarious buildup susceptible to sharp corrections. The absence of context regarding historical support levels or macroeconomic headwinds leaves the risk profile undefined; the price could represent a stable equilibrium in a low-volatility regime or an overextended position awaiting a mean reversion event. Consequently, any assessment of whether this momentum is sustainable must remain speculative given the limited dataset. The single data point provided does not reveal if recent gains are being underpinned by resilient fundamentals or merely short-term liquidity flows that could evaporate quickly upon negative catalysts. Investors observing this level would need to correlate this specific price against wider market context and fundamental health indicators before forming a view on potential downside exposure or upside resilience. Until such additional variables are introduced, the technical picture remains incomplete regarding both risk dynamics and the true nature of current market sentiment surrounding the asset.
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 IGV’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.
Explore More
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-07-17.
SecuritiesDB is for informational purposes only. Not investment advice.