© 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)

JPFP

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

Alternatives Funds · 251 total

ANALYTICS
AnalysisScreenerGroups

JPFP

JPMorgan Managed Futures Plus ETF

Expense Ratio
0.59%
AUM
$129M
Inception
5/29/2026
·

The fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing in and combining the benefits of two investment strategies: an active, managed futures strategy (Managed Futures Strategy) and a U.S. equity strategy (U.S. Equity Strategy). It is non-diversified.

Time Series
–

Performance

NameCumulative ReturnAnn. ReturnAnn. VolSharpeMax DD
JPFP
JPMorgan Managed Futures Plus ETF
6.1%17.9%16.1%0.92-6.6%
ⓘ 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 5/29/2026 to 10/7/2026.

Trailing Returns

Name
YTD1D5D1M3M6M1Y2Y3Y5YMAX
JPFP
JPMorgan Managed Futures Plus ETF
6.5%-0.5%1.9%3.1%8.8%6.5%
ⓘ 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
JPFP
JPMorgan Managed Futures Plus ETF
6.5%
ⓘ 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
Peer Asset Class
Alternatives
Region
Equity Sleeve Style
Large Core
Peer Group Benchmark
Peer Group
Alts - Managed Futures/CTA (35 peers)
Expense Ratio
0.59%
AUM
$129M
Inception
5/29/2026
Holdings (Reported)
550
Turnover
0%
Equity
67%
Derivatives
2%
Strategy Summary

The fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing in and combining the benefits of two investment strategies: an active, managed futures strategy (Managed Futures Strategy) and a U.S. equity strategy (U.S. Equity Strategy). It 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 7/31/2026. Summary may be from an older prospectus.

Equity Size & Style Map

Based on equity exposure only (56% of total assets).

LargeMidSmall
21%
22%
46%
5%
3%
3%
-
-
-
Large
ValueCoreGrowth
Size
Large
89%
Mid
11%
Small
0%
Style
Value
26%
Core
25%
Growth
49%
ⓘ 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 (67% 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 7/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Composite FactorsRef: Alternatives Funds

Based on equity exposure only (56% of total assets).

Intangible Value80.7
Traditional Value34.5
Small-Cap15.1
Quality79.0
Momentum57.9
ⓘ 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 Alternatives 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: Alternatives Funds

Based on equity exposure only (56% of total assets).

Valuation
Book-to-Price (NTM)20.4
Sales-to-Price (NTM)30.2
Earnings-to-Price (NTM)4.9
Innovation/IP
R&D / Mkt Cap1.6
Patents / Mkt Cap0.79
Brand
Sales & Marketing / Mkt Cap1.2
Trademarks / Mkt Cap0.04
Human Capital
PhD Employees / Mkt Cap3.4
Top University Alumni / Mkt Cap9.9
Politics
Lobbying Spend / Mkt Cap15.2
AI
AI Employees / Mkt Cap1.0
ⓘ 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 (Alternatives 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 10/6/2026. AUM as of 9/30/2026.

Country Exposure

Level

Based on holdings that carry a country (66% of total assets).

97.7%
97.6%
Other0.1%
Developed Ex-US2.3%
ⓘ 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 (56% of total assets).

32.9%
13.7%
13.6%
12.2%
10.5%
9.9%
7.0%
0.2%
0.1%
ⓘ 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 (56% of total assets).

AI Composition

Infrastructure47.8%
Early Adopter27.8%
Laggard24.4%

Magnificent 7

Magnificent 731.9%
Non-Magnificent 768.1%

Old vs New Economy

Old Economy40.8%
New Economy59.2%

Globalization

Multinational68.9%
Exporter6.7%
Importer11.1%
Domestic13.2%

China Exposure

China/HK Domiciled0.0%
Revenue & Operations14.7%
Operations Only16.3%
Revenue Only4.0%
No Material Exposure65.0%

Company Size

Mega (>$500B)46.3%
Large ($70–500B)40.0%
Mid ($10–70B)13.6%
Small ($1–10B)0.1%
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 67% 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▾

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

#NameTickerWeight %SectorIndustryCountry
1JPMorgan U.S. Government Money Market Fund-
17.39
--USA
2JPMorgan Prime Money Market Fund-
6.98
--USA
3NvidiaNVDA
4.44
TechnologySemiconductorsUSA
4AppleAAPL
4.14
TechnologyTechnology HardwareUSA
5MicrosoftMSFT
3.15
TechnologySoftwareUSA
6AlphabetGOOGL
2.58
CommunicationInternet PlatformsUSA
7Amazon.comAMZN
2.46
Consumer DiscE-CommerceUSA
8AlphabetGOOG
2.09
CommunicationInternet PlatformsUSA
9ExxonMobil HoldingsXOM
1.74
EnergyOil MajorsUSA
10BroadcomAVGO
1.68
TechnologySemiconductorsUSA
ⓘ 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. Holdings as of 7/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

ConcentrationRef: Alternatives Funds

Total Holdings550
Effective Holdings17.7
Top 10 Weight46.6%
Max Position17.4%
Top Sector (of Net Assets)28%
Top Country (of Net Assets)84%
ⓘ 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 (Alternatives Funds) 25th–75th percentile, notched at the median. Holdings as of 7/31/2026.

Peer Group Rank

See All Peer Groups
Metric
JPFP
JPMorgan Managed Futures Plus ETF
Peer Group
35 funds
Peer Asset Class
251 funds
YTD Return
6.46%16.01%67.46%44
1Y Return
---
3Y Return (Ann.)
---
5Y Return (Ann.)
---
Expense Ratiohigher = cheaper
0.59%1.20%971.42%92
ⓘ Methodology

Sparkline's own holdings-based peer taxonomy (75 share classes across 35 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 Similarity76
Top Overlap
Top Active Tilt
Top Factor Match
FundPeer Group
1HCMT
Direxion HCM Tactical Enhanced US ETF
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
76---
2PHDG
Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF
US Large Core
US Large Core
73---
3ULPIX
ULTRABULL PROFUND
Leveraged - Equity
Leveraged - Equity
73---
4FB
ProShares S&P 500 Dynamic Buffer ETF
Options - Buffer/Defined Outcome
Options - Buffer/Defined Outcome
73---
5TSPX
Twin Oak Active Opportunities ETF
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
73---
6SPXL
Direxion Daily S&P 500 Bull 3X Shares
Leveraged - Equity
Leveraged - Equity
73---
7CFNDX
Cargile Fund
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
73---
8CRDBX
Potomac Defensive Bull Fund
US Large Core
US Large Core
73---
9SSO
ProShares Ultra S&P500
Leveraged - Equity
Leveraged - Equity
73---
10VWELX
VANGUARD WELLINGTON FUND
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
73---

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.