© 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)

CZAR

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

CZAR

Non-Diversified

Themes Natural Monopoly ETF

Expense Ratio
0.35%
AUM
$2M
Inception
12/14/2023
·

The fund invests at least 80% of net assets in securities that comprise the Solactive Natural Monopoly Index and in American Depositary Receipts and Global Depositary Receipts based on those securities. The Index targets large- and mid-capitalization companies with a strong competitive advantage, using a proprietary methodology to select the top 5 companies per sector based on various financial metrics. The fund employs a passive management approach, typically using a replication strategy to mirror the Index's composition.

Time Series
–

Performance

NameCumulative ReturnAnn. ReturnAnn. VolSharpeMax DD
CZAR
Themes Natural Monopoly ETF
4.5%4.5%12.3%0.02-9.5%
ⓘ 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 7/28/2025 to 7/28/2026.

Trailing Returns

Name
YTD1D5D1M3M6M1Y2Y3Y5YMAX
CZAR
Themes Natural Monopoly ETF
3.3%1.9%4.0%3.1%7.8%3.2%8.5%11.5%
ⓘ Methodology

ETF performance based on market prices. Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. As of 7/28/2026.

Annual Returns

Name
202320242025YTD
CZAR
Themes Natural Monopoly ETF
2.3%*10.9%13.3%3.3%
ⓘ 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 7/28/2026.

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
CZARGlobal Dev
Themes Natural Monopoly ETF
-7.2%0.93**-0.090.090.00-0.01-0.35**-0.040.58252
ⓘ Methodology

ETF performance based on market prices. Global Dev 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). Fama-French publishes daily factors for developed markets only, so Dev Ex-US is developed markets excluding the US and Global Dev is developed markets including it; emerging markets, a small share of world market capitalization, are not covered by the source data. From 7/28/2025 to 7/28/2026.

SnapshotAs ofvsⓘ

Fund ProfileNon-Diversified

Registrant
Type
ETF
Asset Class
Equity
Region
Equity Size & Style
Peer Group Benchmark
Peer Group
Global Large Core (154 peers)
Expense Ratio
0.35%
AUM
$2M
3Y Flow
+252.5%
Inception
12/14/2023
Holdings (Reported)
99
Non-Diversified
Yes
Turnover
84%
Equity
100%
Derivatives
0%
Net Equity Exposure
99%
Strategy Summary

The fund invests at least 80% of net assets in securities that comprise the Solactive Natural Monopoly Index and in American Depositary Receipts and Global Depositary Receipts based on those securities. The Index targets large- and mid-capitalization companies with a strong competitive advantage, using a proprietary methodology to select the top 5 companies per sector based on various financial metrics. The fund employs a passive management approach, typically using a replication strategy to mirror the Index's composition.

ⓘ Methodology

Expense ratio and its components from the fund's prospectus fee table. Turnover from the fund's prospectus. Yield as of 9/6/2026, AUM 6/30/2026. Holdings, asset class, style, peer group and exposures as of 6/30/2026. Strategy summary from the fund's prospectus.

Equity Size & Style Map

LargeMidSmall
15%
30%
18%
7%
16%
7%
-
5%
-
Large
ValueCoreGrowth
Size
Large
64%
Mid
31%
Small
5%
Style
Value
23%
Core
51%
Growth
26%
ⓘ 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 Value55.2
Traditional Value50.9
Small-Cap44.2
Quality72.2
Momentum14.4
ⓘ 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)25.0
Sales-to-Price (NTM)39.1
Earnings-to-Price (NTM)5.2
Innovation/IP
R&D / Mkt Cap2.1
Patents / Mkt Cap0.71
Brand
Sales & Marketing / Mkt Cap3.0
Trademarks / Mkt Cap0.04
Human Capital
PhD Employees / Mkt Cap4.6
Top University Alumni / Mkt Cap10.8
Politics
Lobbying Spend / Mkt Cap15.4
AI
AI Employees / Mkt Cap1.5
ⓘ 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 9/6/2026. AUM as of 6/30/2026.

Country Exposure

Level
67.0%
67.0%
33.0%
8.8%
5.9%
4.1%
3.5%
2.3%
2.0%
1.7%
1.4%
1.1%
1.1%
1.0%
Other0.2%
ⓘ 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
26.5%
21.3%
19.3%
9.1%
6.0%
6.0%
3.6%
3.4%
2.9%
1.9%
ⓘ 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

Infrastructure17.5%
Early Adopter49.1%
Laggard33.4%

Magnificent 7

Magnificent 70.0%
Non-Magnificent 7100.0%

Old vs New Economy

Old Economy60.0%
New Economy40.0%

Globalization

Multinational64.2%
Exporter1.0%
Importer9.0%
Domestic25.8%

China Exposure

China/HK Domiciled1.0%
Revenue & Operations1.1%
Operations Only25.9%
Revenue Only5.3%
No Material Exposure66.7%

Company Size

Mega (>$500B)13.7%
Large ($70–500B)38.0%
Mid ($10–70B)43.4%
Small ($1–10B)4.8%
Micro (<$1B)0.0%
ⓘ Methodology

Shares are percentages of the fund's classified equity book, renormalized so each split sums to 100% (the equity book is 100% 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▾

99 positions (top 10 shown, create for full holdings)

#NameTickerWeight %SectorIndustryCountry
1Cisco SystemsCSCO
6.16
TechnologyTechnology HardwareUSA
2FortiveFTV
4.47
IndustrialsHeavy MachineryUSA
3BroadcomAVGO
4.42
TechnologySemiconductorsUSA
4BAE SystemsBA.
4.30
IndustrialsAerospace & DefenseGBR
5AsxASX
3.95
FinancialsInvestment ManagementAUS
6VisaV
3.59
FinancialsPayments & Cons FinUSA
7Raymond James FinancialRJF
3.46
FinancialsInvest BankingUSA
8MastercardMA
3.36
FinancialsPayments & Cons FinUSA
9BlackrockBLK
3.33
FinancialsInvestment ManagementUSA
10PaychexPAYX
3.00
FinancialsPayments & Cons FinUSA
ⓘ Methodology

Holdings as of 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

ConcentrationRef: Equity Funds

Total Holdings99
Effective Holdings41.7
Top 10 Weight40.0%
Max Position6.2%
Top Sector (of Net Assets)26%
Top Country (of Net Assets)63%
ⓘ 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 ACWIBroad Benchmark
Active Share89.9%
Tracking Error10.6%
Benchmark Correlation0.58
ⓘ 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
CZAR
Themes Natural Monopoly ETF
Peer Group
154 funds
Peer Region
435 funds
Peer Asset Class
5,640 funds
YTD Return
----
1Y Return
----
3Y Return (Ann.)
----
5Y Return (Ann.)
----
Expense Ratiohigher = cheaper
0.35%0.85%890.90%920.74%80
ⓘ Methodology

Sparkline's own holdings-based peer taxonomy (464 share classes across 154 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 Similarity28
Top Overlap
Top Active Tilt
Top Factor Match
Top Return Corr
Top FF Match
FundPeer Group
1DIVS
Guinness Atkinson Dividend Builder ETF
Global Large Core
Global Large Core
28-----
2VDIGX
VANGUARD DIVIDEND GROWTH FUND
US Large Core
US Large Core
28-----
3MWEBX
MFS Global Equity Fund
Global Large Core
Global Large Core
25-----
4VADGX
VANGUARD ADVICE SELECT DIVIDEND GROWTH FUND
US Large Core
US Large Core
25-----
5OUSA
ALPS | OShares U.S. Quality Dividend ETF
US Large Core
US Large Core
25-----
6HSTAX
HARTFORD STOCK HLS FUND
US Large Core
US Large Core
25-----
7VIG
VANGUARD DIVIDEND APPRECIATION INDEX FUND
US Large Core
US Large Core
24-----
8FTCS
First Trust Capital Strength ETF
US Large Core
US Large Core
24-----
9CDGIX
CRAWFORD LARGE CAP DIVIDEND FUND
US Large Core
US Large Core
22-----
10JEQIX
JOHNSON EQUITY INCOME FUND
US Large Core
US Large Core
22-----

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. 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.