© 2026 Sparkline Capital LP. All rights reserved.

For informational purposes only. Not investment advice or a recommendation of any security or fund. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Disclosures | Methodology |

ANALYTICS
AnalysisScreenerGroups

Selection

Selected (1/4)

AQLG

Seeded with the selected fund at 100%

Benchmark

Pick one fund or composite — returns and exposures render in excess of it

Peer Universe

Reference set for percentile ranks and factor bars

Equity Funds · 5,640 total

ANALYTICS
AnalysisScreenerGroups

AQLG

HCM Large Cap Growth ETF

Expense Ratio
0.65%
AUM
$76M
Inception
6/9/2026
·

Under normal circumstances, the fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in equity securities of large-capitalization companies. The managers define large-capitalization companies as companies within the Russell 1000 Growth Index at the time of purchase. The fund identifies sectors that contain the highest concentration of top-ranked individual equities. These sectors are then overweighted in the fund’s portfolio to enhance exposure to areas with favorable valuation dynamics. The fund is non-diversified.

Time Series
–

Performance

NameCumulative ReturnAnn. ReturnAnn. VolSharpeMax DD
AQLG
HCM Large Cap Growth ETF
5.5%17.7%9.5%1.53-3.8%
ⓘ Methodology

ETF performance based on market prices. Drag on chart to select period. Sharpe Ratio uses the one-month T-bill as the risk-free rate. From 6/9/2026 to 10/7/2026.

Trailing Returns

Name
YTD1D5D1M3M6M1Y2Y3Y5YMAX
AQLG
HCM Large Cap Growth ETF
5.4%-0.5%1.4%-0.7%1.8%5.4%
ⓘ Methodology

ETF performance based on market prices. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. As of 10/7/2026.

Annual Returns

Name
YTD
AQLG
HCM Large Cap Growth ETF
5.4%
ⓘ Methodology

ETF performance based on market prices. As of 10/7/2026.

Correlation Matrix

Benchmark

Select a second series, or to correlate with the seven research factors.

Factor Regression

Not enough overlapping history for a regression in this period.
ⓘ Methodology

ETF performance based on market prices. Daily OLS of excess return (fund − T-bill) on factor spread returns over the selected date range, intersected with each series' history. Bold with * |t| ≥ 1.96, ** |t| ≥ 2.58. Cell shading tracks each loading's t-stat. Betas are returns-based — compare with the holdings-based factor scores below. Factor returns are long-short spread returns (© Ken French, Dartmouth).

SnapshotAs ofvsⓘ

Fund Profile

Family
Type
ETF
Asset Class
Equity
Region
Equity Size & Style
Peer Group Benchmark
Peer Group
US Large Core (845 peers)
Expense Ratio
0.65%
AUM
$76M
Inception
6/9/2026
Holdings (Reported)
4,986
Turnover
0%
Equity
98%
Derivatives
0%
Strategy Summary

Under normal circumstances, the fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in equity securities of large-capitalization companies. The managers define large-capitalization companies as companies within the Russell 1000 Growth Index at the time of purchase. The fund identifies sectors that contain the highest concentration of top-ranked individual equities. These sectors are then overweighted in the fund’s portfolio to enhance exposure to areas with favorable valuation dynamics. The fund is non-diversified.

ⓘ Methodology

Expense ratio and its components from market data (10/6/2026). Turnover from market data (10/6/2026). Yield as of 10/6/2026, AUM 9/30/2026. Holdings, asset class, style, peer group and exposures as of 6/30/2026. Summary may be from an older prospectus.

Equity Size & Style Map

LargeMidSmall
22%
22%
33%
6%
1%
4%
2%
9%
-
Large
ValueCoreGrowth
Size
Large
77%
Mid
11%
Small
12%
Style
Value
30%
Core
32%
Growth
37%
ⓘ Methodology

Equity size and style definitions. Size: each holding is scored against its own market's size curve — Large above $61.7B in the US and $21.4B elsewhere, Small below $10.8B worldwide — and a fund sits at the weighted average of its holdings. Style: each holding's Traditional Value score is ranked against stocks of the same region and size, and a fund sits at the weighted average of those ranks. Both are relative measures — where a holding stands among comparable stocks, not an absolute threshold. The dollar lines are recomputed from total market capitalisation each time the data is refreshed; the shares of the market they mark are what stay fixed. Cell shading and percentages: share of classified holdings weight per box. The grid and the dot are built from one set of per-holding scores — the dot is their weighted average — so they describe the same book at two levels of detail. The Size and Style bars are the grid's row and column totals. Holdings as of 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Composite FactorsRef: Equity Funds

Intangible Value67.8
Traditional Value41.6
Small-Cap41.6
Quality43.7
Momentum48.3
ⓘ Methodology

Hover or click for factor definitions. Weighted average of underlying company-level values with weights equal to position size. Ranked within the clean equity fund universe, one entry per fund series (lowest: 0, highest: 100; the middle of the range is denser than the ends). Blue dots mark the fund; the shaded band spans the Equity Funds class 25th–75th percentile of scores, notched at the median. Holdings as of 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Factor DetailsRef: Equity Funds

Valuation
Book-to-Price (NTM)31.3
Sales-to-Price (NTM)33.9
Earnings-to-Price (NTM)5.4
Innovation/IP
R&D / Mkt Cap1.8
Patents / Mkt Cap0.70
Brand
Sales & Marketing / Mkt Cap1.5
Trademarks / Mkt Cap0.04
Human Capital
PhD Employees / Mkt Cap4.0
Top University Alumni / Mkt Cap12.8
Politics
Lobbying Spend / Mkt Cap16.3
AI
AI Employees / Mkt Cap1.1
ⓘ Methodology

Hover or click for factor definitions. Weighted average of underlying company-level values with weights equal to position size. Solid blue dots mark the fund's position within the clean equity fund universe (5th–95th percentile scale); the shaded band spans the fund's broad class (Equity Funds) 25th–75th percentile, notched at the median. Holdings as of 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026. Expense ratio, yield, and turnover as of 10/6/2026. AUM as of 9/30/2026.

Country Exposure

Level
99.3%
98.6%
Other0.7%
Other (2 regions)0.7%
ⓘ Methodology

Shares are percentages of the holdings that carry a country, not portfolio weights. Holdings as of 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Sector Exposure

Level
30.2%
27.2%
10.3%
9.4%
7.7%
6.2%
5.5%
2.4%
0.9%
0.2%
0.2%
ⓘ Methodology

Shares are percentages of the fund's classified holdings — every position we can identify, with cash and unidentified positions excluded — not portfolio weights. Holdings as of 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Thematic Exposure

AI Composition

Infrastructure36.9%
Early Adopter33.3%
Laggard29.8%

Magnificent 7

Magnificent 720.1%
Non-Magnificent 779.9%

Old vs New Economy

Old Economy51.5%
New Economy48.5%

Globalization

Multinational51.6%
Exporter8.0%
Importer16.5%
Domestic23.9%

China Exposure

China/HK Domiciled0.0%
Revenue & Operations7.0%
Operations Only5.5%
Revenue Only4.1%
No Material Exposure83.3%

Company Size

Mega (>$500B)33.2%
Large ($70–500B)42.1%
Mid ($10–70B)13.0%
Small ($1–10B)10.7%
Micro (<$1B)1.0%
ⓘ Methodology

Shares are percentages of the fund's classified equity book, renormalized so each split sums to 100% (the equity book is 98% of net assets) — they are not portfolio weights. China exposure: domiciled = incorporated in China or Hong Kong, falling back to the filing's country for holdings outside the stock model. Among the rest, revenue = ≥15% of revenue derived from China; operations = ≥3% of LinkedIn-tracked workforce in China, or ≥2 identified Chinese suppliers making up ≥12% of those identified. China revenue is estimated where segment reporting is absent. Company size bands by holding market cap: Mega >$500B, Large $70–500B, Mid $10–70B, Small $1–10B, Micro <$1B. Old vs New Economy partitions Sparkline's 48 industries: New = technology, internet platforms and entertainment, e-commerce, payments, pharma/biotech/medtech, and renewable energy; Old = everything else. Shares are of classified holdings and sum to 100%. China shares are of total equity weight. Size shares are of scored holdings weight. Holdings as of 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Holdings

See more rows — create a free account▾

132 positions (top 10 shown, create for full holdings) · 6.5% in funds

#NameTickerWeight %SectorIndustryCountry
1AlphabetGOOGL
5.03
CommunicationInternet PlatformsUSA
2AppleAAPL
4.83
TechnologyTechnology HardwareUSA
3First HorizonFHN
3.88
FinancialsNat'l & Regional BanksUSA
4iShares Core S&P 500 ETFIVV
3.68
--USA
5CitigroupC
3.59
FinancialsMultinational BanksUSA
6Kinder MorganKMI
3.39
EnergyMidstream Oil & GasUSA
7BroadcomAVGO
3.34
TechnologySemiconductorsUSA
8Micron TechnologyMU
3.03
TechnologySemiconductorsUSA
9Bank of AmericaBAC
3.01
FinancialsMultinational BanksUSA
10AbbVieABBV
2.66
HealthcareBiotech & Life SciUSA
ⓘ Methodology

Sector, country and factor detail need a security match; the share of weight that matched is a member figure, so the rows without one appear here with those columns blank. "In funds" adds up the rows tagged Fund — holdings that are themselves funds this app covers, which is what look-through can expand; a held vehicle that files no holdings of its own (a commodity or currency trust, a money-market fund) is not counted and stays a single line. Holdings as of 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

ConcentrationRef: Equity Funds

Total Holdings4,986
Effective Holdings46.6
Top 10 Weight36.4%
Max Position5.0%
Top Sector (of Net Assets)27%
Top Country (of Net Assets)99%
ⓘ Methodology

Hover or click for definitions. Solid blue dots mark the fund: percentage rows on a 0–100% scale, holdings counts log-scaled across the clean-universe 5th–95th percentile range. The shaded band spans the fund's broad class (Equity Funds) 25th–75th percentile, notched at the median. Holdings as of 6/30/2026.

Benchmark DifferentiationRef: Equity Funds

vs SPYBroad Benchmark
Active Share59.9%
ⓘ Methodology

One sub-card per benchmark: the market primary, then the style secondary — the gap between them is the style sleeve itself. Both anchors are Sparkline-inferred (market from asset class and region, style from the holdings size-and-style map), not the fund's official prospectus benchmark. Solid blue dot marks the fund; the shaded band spans the reference set's 25th–75th percentile, notched at the median (band follows the Peer Universe selector). Active Share compares the fund's book with the benchmark's, share for share; Tracking Error is the annualized daily deviation over the trailing two years (ruler runs to just past the universe's 95th percentile, or past the fund's own figure where that is larger); Benchmark Correlation is the plain daily correlation over the trailing year. Hover the labels for full definitions.

Peer Group Rank

See All Peer Groups
Metric
AQLG
HCM Large Cap Growth ETF
Peer Group
845 funds
Peer Region
3,133 funds
Peer Asset Class
5,640 funds
YTD Return
5.44%13.47%1112.22%1611.63%22
1Y Return
----
3Y Return (Ann.)
----
5Y Return (Ann.)
----
Expense Ratiohigher = cheaper
0.65%0.57%450.75%570.74%56
ⓘ Methodology

Sparkline's own holdings-based peer taxonomy (1,763 share classes across 845 funds). One share class shown per fund — the exchange-listed class where the SEC series has one, else its longest-history class; percentile ranks and medians are computed against the same deduped set. Quartile chips fill the layer the fund's rank falls in (top layer = best quartile). Funds without a full return history rank only on the horizons they cover.

Similar Funds

See more rows — create a free account▾

Nearest funds across the whole universe, by holdings and behavior — the peer taxonomy is ignored, so matches can come from any category.

Top Similarity25
Top Overlap
Top Active Tilt
Top Factor Match
FundPeer Group
1IMLAX
Transamerica Asset Allocation - Moderate Growth Portfolio
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
25---
2ICSIX
Dynamic US Opportunity Fund
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
25---
3ONGFX
JPMorgan Investor Growth & Income Fund
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
23---
4IMOAX
Transamerica Asset Allocation - Moderate Portfolio
Allocation - Moderate
Allocation - Moderate
20---
5CSQ
CALAMOS STRATEGIC TOTAL RETURN FUND
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
20---
6SMTAX
JPMorgan SmartRetirement 2040 Fund
Target Date 2040 & 2045
Target Date 2040 & 2045
20---
7PYVLX
Payden Equity Income Fund
US Large Value
US Large Value
20---
8VBINX
VANGUARD BALANCED INDEX FUND
Allocation - Moderate
Allocation - Moderate
20---
9HF
Dga Core Plus Absolute Return ETF
Alts - Global Macro
Alts - Global Macro
20---
10SSBIX
State Street Balanced Index Fund
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
20---

The method columns are members-only — create a free account to see these figures.

ⓘ Methodology

Rows are the consensus top matches (a fund must place in at least two methods' top 250 to qualify, and matches missing more than one of this fund's own methods are not ranked — a row scored on fewer methods is a noisier estimate, not a better match). Click a method column to see that method's own top matches across the whole universe instead. Gray (N) beside each method's metric is that fund's rank in the whole universe on that method. Similarity is a percentile among match-grade fund pairs, 0–100 — 87 means the pair is closer than 87% of the strongest matches in the universe, averaged across the methods — so it compares across funds: index clones tie at the top with thousands of other clone pairs, so scores top out in the high 80s to 90s, while a one-of-a-kind fund's best match can score in the 30s. Rows are ordered by the Consensus Rank — the geometric mean of those universe ranks, shown in each cell's tooltip — and the score is held down the list to the level of the closest match above it, so equal scores mean equally close and the number reads as a floor. A dash means that method has no figure for the pair at all (one of them lacks the holdings or return history it needs). Hover a column header for each method's definition. The “Top…” strips above compare against every fund's own top match across the whole universe (they deliberately don't follow the Peer Universe selector); Top Similarity is simply the best match's score, with no reference band; the Holdings and Active Tilt strips carry no reference band because computing every fund's best book overlap would require a full holdings scan per fund — the dot stands alone on its natural 0–100% scale. One share class shown per fund, and a fund's own sister share classes are excluded from its Top-match strips. Holdings as of 6/30/2026. Consensus Rank is the geometric mean of the match's universe-wide rank across the methods (#1.0 = top match on every one). Holdings Overlap = common-holdings weight (sum of the minimum weight across shared positions, long only). Active Tilt Overlap = the same statistic on active weights (holdings minus the fund's own default benchmark, floored at 0), which strips the benchmark ballast that dominates raw overlap. Factor Similarity = 100 − a signature-weighted RMS gap across the composite factor scores (0–100 ranks within the clean equity fund universe), each axis weighted by how far this fund sits from the universe median of 50.