© 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)

DFNDX

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

DFNDX

Non-Diversified

Kensington Defender Fund

Expense Ratio
1.80%
AUM
$119M
Inception
5/31/2023
1Y Return
+14.0%75th %ilevs 1,365 asset-class peers
·

The fund invests in a diverse portfolio across various asset classes, including equities, bonds, commodities, currencies, and real estate, utilizing at least three distinct strategies: the Defender Model, an options overlay strategy, and a managed futures strategy. The Defender Model employs a tactical approach that combines momentum and capital preservation, while the options overlay seeks to generate income through writing options. The fund is actively managed and may invest up to 25% of total assets in a wholly-owned subsidiary for commodity-linked exposure.

Time Series
–

Performance

NameCumulative ReturnAnn. ReturnAnn. VolSharpeMax DD
DFNDX
Kensington Defender Fund
14.0%14.0%10.8%0.95-5.4%
ⓘ 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
DFNDX
Kensington Defender Fund
12.5%-0.3%1.3%0.3%2.9%6.0%14.0%11.9%12.2%9.9%
ⓘ Methodology

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

Annual Returns

Name
202320242025YTD
DFNDX
Kensington Defender Fund
1.8%*5.8%13.3%12.5%
ⓘ 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
DFNDXGlobal Dev
Kensington Defender Fund
-2.7%0.81**-0.090.28**-0.12-0.07-0.03-0.14**0.79226
ⓘ 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 10/7/2025 to 8/31/2026.

SnapshotAs ofvsⓘ

Fund ProfileNon-Diversified

Family
Registrant
Type
Mutual Fund
Asset Class
Peer Asset Class
Asset Allocation
Region
Equity Sleeve Style
Large Core
Peer Group
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic (94 peers)
1Y Peer Percentile
68
3Y Peer Percentile
43
Expense Ratio
1.80%
AUM
$119M
3Y Flow
+14800.3%
Yield
3.89%
Inception
5/31/2023
Holdings (Reported)
3,781
Non-Diversified
Yes
Turnover
260%
Equity
43%
Derivatives
1%
Option Notional
-17%
Strategy Summary

The fund invests in a diverse portfolio across various asset classes, including equities, bonds, commodities, currencies, and real estate, utilizing at least three distinct strategies: the Defender Model, an options overlay strategy, and a managed futures strategy. The Defender Model employs a tactical approach that combines momentum and capital preservation, while the options overlay seeks to generate income through writing options. The fund is actively managed and may invest up to 25% of total assets in a wholly-owned subsidiary for commodity-linked exposure.

ⓘ Methodology

Expense ratio and its components from the fund's prospectus fee table. Turnover from the fund's prospectus. Yield as of 10/6/2026, AUM 9/30/2026. Holdings, asset class, style, peer group and exposures as of 6/30/2026. Strategy summary from the fund's prospectus.

Equity Size & Style Map

Based on equity exposure only (38% of total assets).

LargeMidSmall
12%
20%
39%
3%
3%
3%
7%
9%
4%
Large
ValueCoreGrowth
Size
Large
70%
Mid
9%
Small
20%
Style
Value
22%
Core
32%
Growth
46%
ⓘ Methodology

Equity size and style definitions: Large vs. Small based on market cap, where Large > $70B, Mid $10-70B, and Small < $10B. Value vs. Growth based on percentile ranking on Traditional Value score within the fund's region and size cohort (equal thirds among its true equity-fund peers). This fund is not an equity fund, so the box describes its equity sleeve only (43% of assets): the sleeve's holdings are scored and ranked against equity funds of the same region and size cohort. The rest of the portfolio (bonds, cash, other assets) is not represented here. Cell shading and percentages: share of classified holdings weight per box, from stock-level classification (size on the same $70B/$10B lines; value by Traditional Value terciles across scored stocks). The dot is the average holding ranked against other funds, so dot and weights can differ at the margin. 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.

Factor DetailsRef: Asset Allocation Funds

Based on equity exposure only (38% of total assets).

None of the selected metrics are scored for DFNDX — switch the picker to All, or add metrics under Metrics (top right).

ⓘ 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 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.

Asset Class Exposure

Equity43.9%
Cash & Short-Term46.6%
Commodities9.1%
Other0.4%
Short positions of 0.4% 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 (46% of the book). 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.

Country Exposure

Level

Based on holdings that carry a country (40% of total assets).

69.4%
69.2%
Other0.2%
16.1%
14.7%
Other1.4%
14.5%
4.9%
3.6%
2.4%
Other3.6%
ⓘ 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

Based on equity exposure only (38% of total assets).

Technology35.4%
Financials12.9%
Industrials11.0%
Consumer Discretionary10.6%
Communication8.5%
Healthcare7.2%
Consumer Staples4.3%
Materials3.1%
Energy2.7%
Real Estate2.5%
Utilities1.9%
ⓘ 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

Based on equity exposure only (38% of total assets).

Old vs New Economy

Old Economy46.7%
New Economy53.3%

China Exposure

China/HK Domiciled4.0%
Revenue & Operations13.3%
Operations Only14.5%
Revenue Only5.1%
No Material Exposure63.1%

Company Size

Mega (>$500B)29.9%
Large ($70–500B)31.9%
Mid ($10–70B)18.8%
Small ($1–10B)18.9%
Micro (<$1B)0.4%
ⓘ Methodology

Shares are percentages of the fund's classified equity book, renormalized so each split sums to 100% (the equity book is 43% 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▾

22 positions (top 10 shown, create for full holdings) · 49.3% in funds

#NameTickerWeight %Country
1742718109-
46.12
USA
2Vanguard S&P 500 ETFVFINX
16.34
USA
3State Street SPDR Portfolio EmSPEM
6.11
USA
4State Street SPDR Portfolio S&SPSM
6.11
USA
5Franklin FTSE Japan ETFFLJP
5.99
USA
6Invesco Optimum Yield DiversifPDBC
5.94
USA
7Invesco QQQ Trust Series 1QQQ
5.69
USA
8Galaxy Plus Fund Cane-
4.29
USA
9abrdn Physical Gold Shares ETFSGOL
3.15
USA
10--
0.09
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 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

ConcentrationRef: Asset Allocation Funds

Total Holdings3,781
Effective Holdings3.9
Top 10 Weight99.8%
Max Position46.1%
Top Sector (of Net Assets)100%
Top Country (of Net Assets)100%
ⓘ 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 6/30/2026.

Peer Group Rank

See All Peer Groups
Metric
DFNDX
Kensington Defender Fund
Peer Group
94 funds
Peer Asset Class
1,365 funds
YTD Return
12.52%8.84%737.49%81
1Y Return
14.00%10.74%689.48%75
3Y Return (Ann.)
12.17%13.36%4314.21%35
5Y Return (Ann.)
---
Expense Ratiohigher = cheaper
1.80%1.55%320.80%7
ⓘ Methodology

Sparkline's own holdings-based peer taxonomy (189 share classes across 94 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 Similarity51
Top Overlap
Top Active Tilt
Top Return Corr
Top FF Match
FundPeer Group
1NDAA
Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
51----
2MATR
Harbor Multi-Asset Explorer ETF
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
43----
3KAGAX
Kensington Dynamic Allocation Fund
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
43----
4TBFG
The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
43----
5RAA
SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF
Allocation - Moderate
Allocation - Moderate
43----
6GAL
State Street(R) Global Allocation ETF
Allocation - Moderate
Allocation - Moderate
43----
7ELM
Elm Market Navigator ETF
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
43----
8SSTIX
State Street Total Return V.I.S. Fund
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
43----
9HFIGX
Hartford Schroders Diversified Opportunities Fund
Allocation - Moderate
Allocation - Moderate
43----
10ETFRX
NORTH SQUARE TACTICAL DEFENSIVE FUND
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
43----

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. 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.