© 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)

AXBAX

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

Asset Allocation Funds · 1,365 total

ANALYTICS
AnalysisScreenerGroups

AXBAX

Columbia Capital Allocation Aggressive Portfolio

Expense Ratio
1.02%
AUM
$1.4B
Inception
3/1/2004
1Y Return
+14.3%76th %ilevs 1,365 asset-class peers
·

The fund is primarily managed as a fund that invests in other funds (i.e., a “fund-of-funds”) that seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing under normal circumstances in a combination of underlying funds, including exchange-traded funds (ETFs), for which Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC (the Investment Manager) or an affiliate serves as investment adviser or principal underwriter (the affiliated underlying funds).

Time Series
–

Performance

NameCumulative ReturnAnn. ReturnAnn. VolSharpeMax DD
AXBAX
Columbia Capital Allocation Aggressive Portfolio
14.3%14.3%12.2%0.85-8.0%
ⓘ 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 10/7/2025 to 10/7/2026.

Trailing Returns

Name
YTD1D5D1M3M6M1Y2Y3Y5YMAX
AXBAX
Columbia Capital Allocation Aggressive Portfolio
11.5%-0.6%1.0%-1.2%1.8%12.1%14.3%15.4%19.1%9.1%7.8%
ⓘ Methodology

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

Annual Returns

Name
2004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025YTD
AXBAX
Columbia Capital Allocation Aggressive Portfolio
7.6%*7.7%14.7%2.6%-35.6%29.8%15.9%-3.0%14.5%22.6%5.8%0.4%6.3%22.3%-9.4%23.9%14.1%16.3%-19.1%19.9%15.5%19.1%11.5%
ⓘ Methodology

* partial year — the series ran for only part of it (its first year, or the year it closed); the figure is the return over the part it did run. 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

Name
Ann. αβ MKTβ SMBβ HMLβ RMWβ CMAβ UMDβ iHMLR²Obs
AXBAXUS
Columbia Capital Allocation Aggressive Portfolio
2.2%0.86**-0.03-0.01-0.03*0.09**0.03*-0.09**0.96226
ⓘ Methodology

ETF performance based on market prices. US factor set. 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). From 10/7/2025 to 8/31/2026.

SnapshotAs ofvsⓘ

Fund Profile

Fund Documents(opens the fund company’s site in a new tab)
Family
Registrant
Type
Mutual Fund
Asset Class
Peer Asset Class
Asset Allocation
Region
Equity Size & Style
Peer Group Benchmark
Prospectus Benchmark
Russell 3000 ® Index ($40,910)
Peer Group
Allocation - Aggressive (327 peers)
1Y Peer Percentile
75
3Y Peer Percentile
87
Expense Ratio
1.02%
5Y Tax Drag
2.19%/yr
AUM
$1.4B
3Y Flow
-10.7%
Yield
1.57%
Inception
3/1/2004
Holdings (Reported)
4,582
Turnover
19%
Equity
81%
Derivatives
0%
Strategy Summary

The fund is primarily managed as a fund that invests in other funds (i.e., a “fund-of-funds”) that seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing under normal circumstances in a combination of underlying funds, including exchange-traded funds (ETFs), for which Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC (the Investment Manager) or an affiliate serves as investment adviser or principal underwriter (the affiliated underlying funds).

ⓘ Methodology

Expense ratio and its components from the fund's prospectus fee table; tax drag from its after-tax return table. Turnover from the SEC annual report (4/6/2026). Yield as of 10/7/2026, AUM 9/30/2026. Holdings, asset class, style, peer group and exposures as of 7/31/2026. Strategy summary from the fund's prospectus. Summary may be from an older prospectus.

Equity Size & Style Map

Based on equity exposure only (78% of total assets).

LargeMidSmall
16%
21%
39%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
Large
ValueCoreGrowth
Size
Large
77%
Mid
14%
Small
10%
Style
Value
25%
Core
29%
Growth
46%
ⓘ 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 7/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Composite FactorsRef: Asset Allocation Funds

Based on equity exposure only (78% of total assets).

Intangible Value57.6
Traditional Value40.5
Small-Cap42.3
Quality60.6
Momentum62.8
ⓘ 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 Asset Allocation Funds class 25th–75th percentile of scores, notched at the median. Holdings as of 7/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Factor DetailsRef: Asset Allocation Funds

Based on equity exposure only (78% of total assets).

Valuation
Book-to-Price (NTM)27.0
Sales-to-Price (NTM)42.1
Earnings-to-Price (NTM)5.3
Innovation/IP
R&D / Mkt Cap1.7
Patents / Mkt Cap0.80
Brand
Sales & Marketing / Mkt Cap2.1
Trademarks / Mkt Cap0.05
Human Capital
PhD Employees / Mkt Cap4.1
Top University Alumni / Mkt Cap9.7
Politics
Lobbying Spend / Mkt Cap14.8
AI
AI Employees / Mkt Cap1.2
ⓘ 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 (Asset Allocation Funds) 25th–75th percentile, notched at the median. Holdings as of 7/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026. Expense ratio, yield, and turnover as of 10/7/2026. AUM as of 9/30/2026.

Asset Class Exposure

Equity79.2%
Fixed Income12.7%
Cash & Short-Term4.1%
Commodities1.4%
Alternatives1.9%
Other0.8%
Short positions of 0.3% of net assets are not shown.ⓘ Methodology

Shares of the fund's long book, from the asset category each position is filed under. Holdings that are themselves funds are looked through one level to their own mix (98% of the book). Cash & Short-Term includes 0.8% of net assets the filing does not itemise. The short book is stated under the card and never netted into a slice: a pie cannot draw a negative, and folding a hedge into the class it offsets would make it look like more of that class. Other is everything we could not name as an asset class: holdings the filing itself labels as other, derivative positions at the market value the filing reports rather than at notional, and funds held inside this fund whose own holdings we could not read (0.2% here). Alternatives holds funds counted by what they are rather than by what they hold - alternative strategies, and funds that are short. A pie cannot draw a negative, and adding a hedge to the class it offsets would make it look like more of that class.

Country Exposure

Level
76.6%
75.4%
1.3%
13.6%
3.2%
1.9%
1.4%
1.2%
1.0%
1.0%
Other4.0%
9.8%
2.3%
2.2%
1.6%
Other3.7%
ⓘ Methodology

Shares are percentages of the holdings that carry a country, not portfolio weights. Holdings as of 7/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Sector Exposure

Level

Based on equity exposure only (78% of total assets).

Technology32.9%
Financials14.7%
Industrials11.5%
Healthcare10.1%
Consumer Discretionary8.8%
Communication7.7%
Consumer Staples4.1%
Energy3.7%
Utilities2.4%
Materials2.3%
Real Estate1.7%
ⓘ 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 7/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Thematic Exposure

Based on equity exposure only (78% of total assets).

AI Composition

Infrastructure41.9%
Early Adopter26.7%
Laggard31.5%

Magnificent 7

Magnificent 721.3%
Non-Magnificent 778.7%

Old vs New Economy

Old Economy47.0%
New Economy53.0%

Globalization

Multinational59.3%
Exporter7.2%
Importer11.7%
Domestic21.8%

China Exposure

China/HK Domiciled2.4%
Revenue & Operations9.5%
Operations Only15.2%
Revenue Only6.5%
No Material Exposure66.3%

Company Size

Mega (>$500B)35.4%
Large ($70–500B)34.5%
Mid ($10–70B)21.1%
Small ($1–10B)8.9%
Micro (<$1B)0.1%
ⓘ Methodology

Shares are percentages of the fund's classified equity book, renormalized so each split sums to 100% (the equity book is 81% 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 7/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Holdings

See more rows — create a free account▾

71 positions (top 10 shown, create for full holdings) · 97% in funds

#NameTickerWeight %Country
1Columbia Contrarian Core FundSMGIX
15.68
USA
2Columbia Select Large Cap Equity FundNSEPX
15.15
USA
3Columbia Large Cap Growth FundGEGTX
13.91
USA
4Columbia Large Cap Value FundINDZX
13.26
USA
5Columbia Overseas Core FundCOSAX
13.14
USA
6Columbia Research Enhanced Emerging Economies ETFECON
4.11
USA
7Columbia Core Bond ETFCRUX
3.61
USA
8Columbia Select Corporate Income FundSRINX
3.31
USA
9Columbia Quality Income FundAUGAX
3.17
USA
10Columbia Emerging Markets FundUMEMX
2.93
USA
ⓘ 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 7/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

ConcentrationRef: Asset Allocation Funds

Total Holdings4,582
Effective Holdings9
Top 10 Weight88.3%
Max Position15.7%
Top Sector (of Net Assets)99%
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 (Asset Allocation Funds) 25th–75th percentile, notched at the median. Holdings as of 7/31/2026.

Benchmark DifferentiationRef: Asset Allocation Funds

vs SPYBroad Benchmark
Active Share100.0%
Tracking Error5.1%
Benchmark Correlation0.96
ⓘ 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
AXBAX
Columbia Capital Allocation Aggressive Portfolio
Peer Group
327 funds
Peer Asset Class
1,365 funds
YTD Return
11.52%8.65%757.49%75
1Y Return
14.25%11.06%759.48%76
3Y Return (Ann.)
19.08%15.42%8714.23%82
5Y Return (Ann.)
9.05%7.12%816.38%81
Expense Ratiohigher = cheaper
1.02%0.94%390.80%27
ⓘ Methodology

Sparkline's own holdings-based peer taxonomy (945 share classes across 327 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 Similarity85
Top Overlap
Top Active Tilt
Top Factor Match
Top Return Corr
Top FF Match
FundPeer Group
1NBGPX
Columbia Capital Allocation Moderate Aggressive Portfolio
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
85-----
2ABUAX
Columbia Capital Allocation Moderate Portfolio
Allocation - Moderate
Allocation - Moderate
76-----
3NIICX
Columbia Capital Allocation Moderate Conservative Portfolio
Allocation - Moderate
Allocation - Moderate
58-----
4FLREX
Franklin LifeSmart 2040 Retirement Target Fund
Target Date 2040 & 2045
Target Date 2040 & 2045
58-----
5GETFX
Morningstar Growth ETF Asset Allocation Portfolio
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
58-----
6ONGAX
JPMorgan Investor Growth Fund
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
58-----
7IMRFX
Columbia Global Opportunities Fund
Allocation - Moderate
Allocation - Moderate
52-----
8FRAGX
85% Allocation Fund
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
52-----
9PAEAX
Putnam Dynamic Asset Allocation Growth Fund
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
52-----
10FGTIX
Franklin Growth Allocation Fund
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
52-----

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 7/31/2026. 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. Return Correlation = correlation of market-hedged daily returns over the trailing two years (CAPM residuals), so only market-beta co-movement is removed; requires ~18 months of daily history (378 of the window's 504 trading days). Fama-French Similarity = 1/(1+d), where d is the Euclidean distance between factor betas (market, size, value, profitability, investment, momentum, intangible value) from up to three years of daily returns (min 378 daily observations and regression R² of at least 0.25); 1.00 = identical loadings.