IWP(IWP)
AI Look-Through Summary
AI GeneratedThe IWP ETF maintains a substantial asset base of $18.7 billion, reflecting significant market participation in its targeted strategies. A distinct feature of this fund's composition is the pronounced concentration within the Industrials sector, which accounts for 12.5% of total assets. This exposure is driven by heavy weighting toward specific constituents such as VRT, HWM, and PWR, each individually representing over two percent of the portfolio. While Technology and Consumer Cyclical sectors follow with comparable aggregate weights of roughly four to five percent, the Industrials tilt suggests a strategic focus on infrastructure or manufacturing-related equities rather than balanced diversification across all major growth engines.
Geographic orientation cannot be explicitly determined from the provided sector breakdown alone, as these figures represent industry classifications rather than regional exposure; however, the specific selection of holdings like RCL and TRGP implies potential involvement in travel services and energy production, sectors often sensitive to global economic cycles and commodity prices. The top ten holdings collectively demonstrate a moderate concentration risk, with the single largest position holding just 4.2%, indicating that while no single stock dominates the entire fund, the upper tier of positions exerts meaningful influence on performance volatility. With significant capital allocated to mid-cap or large-cap industrials alongside select technology and consumer names, the portfolio structure appears designed to capture value from specific economic drivers rather than pursuing broad market beta through passive indexing alone.
Generated by Qwen-32B from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-23 19:53:59.21372+00
🔍 Theme Alignment Audit
AI GeneratedPurity: 45/100The 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 GeneratedThe 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 CircleWhich larger ETFs share IWP's holdings — and mechanically drive its price through index rebalancing flows?
Approximately 100% of IWP's weight flows through these larger ETFs
| Driver ETF | AUM | Expense | Shared Stocks | Weight Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ONEOONEO | $25M | — | 10 | 25.7% |
| VONGVONG | $46B | — | 10 | 25.7% |
| VONEVONE | $10B | — | 10 | 25.7% |
| QUSQUS | $1B | — | 10 | 25.7% |
| VTVT | $80B | — | 10 | 25.7% |
26% of IWP's portfolio by weight is also held by ONEO. When ONEO 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 100% 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
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 92% 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 26% 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 IWP collectively pay out 27% 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 24% 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
ProprietaryIWP is up 6.7% over the last 12 months. The underlying weighted earnings growth of its constituents is +40.0%. Despite earnings growth, valuations have contracted by 33.3% — 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 26% of fund weight with earnings data. Not investment advice.
Value Creation Map
ROIC vs WACCWhat percentage of IWP's weight is allocated to companies that create economic value (ROIC > WACC) vs. destroy it?
Of IWP's analyzed weight, 81% is invested in companies earning more than their cost of capital — genuine value creators. The remaining 19% consists of companies whose ROIC falls below their WACC, effectively destroying shareholder value with every dollar invested.
ROIC-WACC spread for 26% 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.
IWP has a Passive Crowding Score of 46/100. On average, 13.8% 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 21 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 | VRT | Vertiv Holdings Co Class A Industrials | 4.22% | 79.3x | 5/9 |
| 2 | HWM | Howmet Aerospace Inc Industrials | 3.29% | 59.9x | 8/9 |
| 3 | PWR | Quanta Services Inc Industrials | 2.81% | 98.0x | 5/9 |
| 4 | MPWR | Monolithic Power Systems Inc Technology | 2.52% | 112.4x | 5/9 |
| 5 | HLT | Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc Consumer Cyclical | 2.50% | 50.0x | 5/9 |
| 6 | RCL | Royal Caribbean Group Consumer Cyclical | 2.26% | 17.4x | 7/9 |
| 7 | NET | Cloudflare Inc Technology | 2.17% | — | 4/9 |
| 8 | FIX | Comfort Systems USA Inc Industrials | 2.16% | 52.9x | 7/9 |
| 9 | COR | Cencora Inc Healthcare | 1.91% | 20.7x | 5/9 |
| 10 | TRGP | Targa Resources Corp Energy | 1.87% | 26.1x | 5/9 |
Historical Holdings Snapshots
Browse how IWP’s holdings have changed across SEC filing dates. Showing top holdings per snapshot.
2026-05-24
10 holdings · 25.7% tracked weight2026-05-23
10 holdings · 25.7% tracked weight2026-05-22
10 holdings · 25.7% tracked weight2026-05-21
10 holdings · 25.7% tracked weight2026-05-20
10 holdings · 25.7% 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 IWP Today?
Daily return attribution — which holdings contributed most (and least) to the fund's move.
Technical Setup
AI GeneratedIWP 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.
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 IWP’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: 2026-06-02.
SecuritiesDB is for informational purposes only. Not investment advice.