ETF · Broad Market

IWP(IWP)

$137.59
-0.56%
Expense Ratio
$18.7B
Total AUM
Holdings
Inception
Active Share vs VOO
Moderate
0%20%60%100%
58.6%

AI Look-Through Summary

AI Generated

The portfolio's sector allocation is skewed towards Technology, which accounts for nearly one-tenth of its assets under management. This is a notable tilt, as the broader market typically has a more diversified sector mix. The fund also holds significant allocations to Real Estate and Industrials, while Energy and Financial Services are present in smaller proportions.

The top holdings reveal a high concentration risk, with DDOG and SNOW each accounting for approximately 2.3% of the portfolio's assets. This suggests that the fund's performance may be heavily influenced by these two stocks. The weighted P/E ratio is elevated at 50.2x, indicating a relatively expensive valuation posture compared to historical norms. A favorable macro environment for this portfolio would likely involve sustained growth in Technology and Real Estate sectors, while an unfavorable scenario could arise from an economic downturn or sector rotation away from these areas.

Generated by Qwen-32B from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-07-14 08:10:49.376133+00

🔍 Theme Alignment Audit

AI GeneratedPurity: 45/100

The thematic alignment between the IWP ETF's name implying a focus on global infrastructure and its actual portfolio composition reveals significant discrepancies. While several top holdings such as VRT, HWM, PWR, FIX, and MPWR operate within sectors that tangentially relate to construction or equipment maintenance, their primary business models often diverge from core infrastructure development. Notably, the inclusion of consumer cyclical stocks like HLT and RCL alongside technology firms such as NET suggests a broad diversification strategy rather than a strict adherence to an infrastructure theme. Furthermore, the presence of energy stock TRGP indicates that the fund may be capturing adjacent utility sectors or using these positions for stability, which dilutes the purity of any specific infrastructure mandate implied by its ticker and market perception.

Sector coherence is further challenged by the fragmented nature of the top ten holdings across five distinct industries. The Industrials sector accounts for only 12.5% of the portfolio despite containing four names that could theoretically support an infrastructure narrative, while Consumer Cyclical and Technology sectors hold comparable weights with just two names each. This distribution suggests the fund relies heavily on a small number of large-cap stocks to generate returns rather than constructing a diversified basket of pure-play infrastructure assets. With only 25.7% concentration in the top ten holdings, the portfolio appears spread thin across unrelated themes, making it difficult to distinguish its performance drivers from those of a broad market index. The lack of deep sector weighting implies that the fund's strategy may prioritize liquidity and familiarity over strict thematic purity.

AI analysis of holdings alignment vs fund theme. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-22 11:52:45.539383+00

🏢 Sector Analysis

AI Generated

The sector breakdown of IWP reveals a distinct and highly concentrated focus on the Industrials segment, which accounts for 12.5% of the portfolio through only four holdings. This heavy weighting suggests an investment thesis centered exclusively on large-cap industrial leaders rather than broad industry exposure or small-to-mid cap diversification within that space. The remaining sectors, including Consumer Cyclical and Technology, collectively represent a minor fraction of the allocation at under 10%, indicating that the fund is not designed to capture general market beta across diverse economic drivers but instead targets specific performance characteristics inherent to its primary industrial constituents.

This structural composition creates significant concentration risk, evidenced by the fact that the top five holdings alone comprise over one-quarter of the total assets and are heavily skewed toward a single sector. With VRT, HWM, and PWR all falling under Industrials, the fund's returns will be disproportionately influenced by the fortunes of these specific companies rather than a diversified basket of industrial peers. The low number of holdings per sector further amplifies this vulnerability, meaning that adverse events affecting just one or two of the top positions could materially impact overall portfolio performance without adequate internal hedging through broader industry representation.

Furthermore, the data implies a factor tilt toward large-cap quality and momentum given the dominance of established market leaders in the industrial space. The minimal exposure to Technology and Healthcare suggests an intentional avoidance of sectors often associated with high growth volatility or defensive characteristics during downturns. Consequently, while this allocation may offer targeted upside if specific industrial trends favor these particular firms, it inherently limits diversification benefits that typically arise from a more balanced sector mix across different economic cycles.

AI-generated sector analysis from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-23 03:38:25.963667+00

Flow Driver Analysis

2-Step Circle

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

Approximately 79% of IWP's weight flows through these larger ETFs

Driver ETFAUMExpenseShared StocksWeight Overlap
VTIVanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares$2.1T0.03%1019.7%
ONEOONEO$25M1019.7%
VONEVONE$10B1019.7%
QUSQUS$1B1019.7%
VONGVONG$46B1019.7%

20% of IWP's portfolio by weight is also held by VTI, which commands 112× more assets under management. When VTI receives inflows, it mechanically buys these shared stocks — dragging IWP's NAV along regardless of any thematic or sector catalyst. Combined, the top 5 overlapping ETFs control exposure to 99% ofIWP'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.

49.1x
Weighted P/E
34.76x
Weighted P/B
$75B
Wtd Avg Market Cap

Weighted metrics calculated based on 77% of fund assets with available data.

Herfindahl-Hirschman Concentration Index

0100020003000400039
Well Diversified
Top 5: 10.9%Top 10: 19.7%

Morningstar-Style Box

Value
Blend
Growth
Large
Mid
Small
Mid Growth

Sector & Cap Explorer

Technology63.7%Real Estate9.9%Industrials9.6%Financial Services8.9%Energy7.9%
Visualization Mode

ETF Fundamental Radar

Total Analysis
20% 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%
0%
0–3 Weak
16%
4–6 Average
4%
7–9 Strong

Based on 20% 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
62%
Wtd FCF Payout Ratio
0.24%
TTM Yield
Safe
Dividend Durability
62% of FCF
0% (retains all cash)50%100% (pays out everything)

The dividend-paying companies inside IWP collectively pay out 62% of their Free Cash Flow to maintain the current yield. This is a sustainable payout level with moderate room for dividend growth. Based on 7% 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
-1.9%
ETF 1Y Return
+63.1%
Wtd Earnings Growth
-65.0%
Multiple Contraction

IWP is down 1.9% over the last 12 months. The underlying weighted earnings growth of its constituents is +63.1%. Despite earnings growth, valuations have contracted by 65.0% — 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 20% of fund weight with earnings data. Not investment advice.

Value Creation Map

ROIC vs WACC

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

61% Destroyers
Value Creators (ROIC > WACC)5.4%
Value Destroyers8.5%

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

ROIC-WACC spread for 14% 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.

44/ 100
Wtd Avg Passive Ownership13.3%
Most Crowded HoldingTER (21.4%)
Least CrowdedSNOW (7.3%)
Coverage20% of fund weight
0 — Low255075100 — Extreme

IWP has a Passive Crowding Score of 44/100. On average, 13.3% of the market capitalization of IWP'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 32 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds). Not investment advice.

Under the Hood — Top 10 Constituents

Top 10 Concentration19.7%
#TickerCompanyWeightP/EF-Score
1DDOG
Datadog Inc Class A
Technology
2.34%
663.3x6/9
2SNOW
Snowflake Inc Ordinary Shares
Technology
2.33%
5/9
3NET
Cloudflare Inc
Technology
2.12%
4/9
4TER
Teradyne Inc
Technology
2.07%
59.9x5/9
5ALAB
Astera Labs Inc
Technology
2.02%
216.9x5/9
6SPG
Simon Property Group Inc
Real Estate
1.96%
15.9x4/9
7FIX
Comfort Systems USA Inc
Industrials
1.89%
48.5x7/9
8HOOD
Robinhood Markets Inc Class A
Financial Services
1.75%
51.5x4/9
9LITE
Lumentum Holdings Inc
Technology
1.67%
129.7x7/9
10TRGP
Targa Resources Corp
Energy
1.56%
28.7x5/9

Historical Holdings Snapshots

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

2026-07-18

10 holdings · 19.7% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1DDOG2.34%
2SNOW2.33%
3NET2.12%
4TER2.07%
5ALAB2.02%
6SPG1.96%
7FIX1.89%
8HOOD1.75%
9LITE1.67%
10TRGP1.56%

2026-07-17

10 holdings · 19.7% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1DDOG2.34%
2SNOW2.33%
3NET2.12%
4TER2.07%
5ALAB2.02%
6SPG1.96%
7FIX1.89%
8HOOD1.75%
9LITE1.67%
10TRGP1.56%

2026-07-16

10 holdings · 19.7% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1DDOG2.34%
2SNOW2.33%
3NET2.12%
4TER2.07%
5ALAB2.02%
6SPG1.96%
7FIX1.89%
8HOOD1.75%
9LITE1.67%
10TRGP1.56%

2026-07-15

10 holdings · 19.7% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1DDOG2.34%
2SNOW2.33%
3NET2.12%
4TER2.07%
5ALAB2.02%
6SPG1.96%
7FIX1.89%
8HOOD1.75%
9LITE1.67%
10TRGP1.56%

2026-07-14

10 holdings · 19.7% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1DDOG2.34%
2SNOW2.33%
3NET2.12%
4TER2.07%
5ALAB2.02%
6SPG1.96%
7FIX1.89%
8HOOD1.75%
9LITE1.67%
10TRGP1.56%

2026-07-13

10 holdings · 19.7% tracked weight
#TickerWeightSharesMarket Value
1DDOG2.34%
2SNOW2.33%
3NET2.12%
4TER2.07%
5ALAB2.02%
6SPG1.96%
7FIX1.89%
8HOOD1.75%
9LITE1.67%
10TRGP1.56%

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

Risk Profile

22.1%
Annual Volatility
-0.22
Sharpe (1Y)
0.44
Sharpe (3Y)
-25.2%
Max Drawdown (3Y)
-38.6%
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 IWP Today?

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

Fund move:-0.56%(2026-07-17)

Top Contributors

+0.063%
+0.040%
+0.015%

Top Detractors

-0.032%
-0.100%
-0.102%

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

Technical Setup

AI Generated

IWP is currently trading at $139.44, a price point that requires contextual comparison against its established moving averages to determine the prevailing trend direction and momentum status. Without specific average values provided in the immediate data set, the precise relationship between current pricing and historical trends remains undefined for this snapshot alone. The Relative Strength Index (RSI) is not included in the supplied information, preventing an assessment of short-term overbought or oversold conditions that typically signal potential reversals or continuation patterns. Consequently, a definitive conclusion regarding whether price action is diverging from or confirming long-term support levels cannot be drawn from these isolated figures. In technical analysis, identifying if a security trades above key moving averages often suggests bullish momentum, while trading below may indicate bearish pressure; however, the absence of those specific average lines here leaves the trend characterization incomplete. Similarly, RSI readings are crucial for gauging velocity and potential exhaustion in price moves, but their omission means short-term sentiment cannot be quantified at this moment. The current data point serves only as a static reference without the comparative framework necessary to evaluate directional strength or immediate cyclical positioning relative to historical norms. Ultimately, synthesizing momentum requires integrating multiple timeframes and indicators that are not fully present in this single price observation. Investors must wait for additional data regarding moving average crossovers and oscillator readings before forming a comprehensive view of whether IWP is exhibiting strong upward thrust, weak downward drift, or consolidation behavior within its recent

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

0.24%
TTM Yield
30-Day SEC Yield
5Y Div CAGR

Sector Drift Over Time

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

2026-07-1893 snapshots
Technology63.7%
Real Estate9.9%
Industrials9.6%
Financial Services8.9%
Energy7.9%
Change since 2026-03-30
Technology
+48.5%
Industrials
-28.3%
Consumer Cyclical
-21.3%
Healthcare
-17.1%
Real Estate
+9.9%
Financial Services
+8.9%
2026-03-302026-07-18

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.

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.