© 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)

OCIO

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

OCIO

ClearShares OCIO ETF

Expense Ratio
0.65%
AUM
$172M
Inception
6/28/2017
1Y Return
+12.6%67th %ilevs 1,365 asset-class peers
·

The fund is expected to typically invest approximately 30% to 80% of its total assets in equity securities (of any market capitalization), either through Underlying Investments that principally invest in U.S. or foreign equity securities, or directly in U.S. equity securities. It may also invest directly in such U.S. equity securities.

Time Series
–

Performance

NameCumulative ReturnAnn. ReturnAnn. VolSharpeMax DD
OCIO
ClearShares OCIO ETF
12.6%12.6%11.7%0.75-7.0%
ⓘ 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
OCIO
ClearShares OCIO ETF
11.1%-0.5%1.1%0.4%2.8%11.5%12.6%12.6%14.9%7.7%8.7%
ⓘ Methodology

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

Annual Returns

Name
201720182019202020212022202320242025YTD
OCIO
ClearShares OCIO ETF
5.6%*-1.1%18.6%11.5%13.1%-12.4%12.0%12.8%12.7%11.1%
ⓘ 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
OCIOUS
ClearShares OCIO ETF
-1.6%0.76**-0.11**0.04-0.11**0.15**0.06**-0.08**0.91226
ⓘ 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

Family
Registrant
Type
ETF
Asset Class
Peer Asset Class
Asset Allocation
Region
Equity Sleeve Style
Large Core
Peer Group Benchmark
Peer Group
Allocation - Aggressive (327 peers)
1Y Peer Percentile
61
3Y Peer Percentile
43
Expense Ratio
0.65%
5Y Tax Drag
1.14%/yr
AUM
$172M
3Y Flow
+14.4%
Yield
1.58%
Inception
6/28/2017
Holdings (Reported)
17,997
Turnover
72%
Equity
61%
Derivatives
0%
Option Notional
-36%
Strategy Summary

The fund is expected to typically invest approximately 30% to 80% of its total assets in equity securities (of any market capitalization), either through Underlying Investments that principally invest in U.S. or foreign equity securities, or directly in U.S. equity securities. It may also invest directly in such U.S. equity securities.

ⓘ Methodology

Expense ratio and its components from the fund's prospectus fee table; tax drag from its after-tax return 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 5/31/2026. Strategy summary from the fund's prospectus. Summary may be from an older prospectus.

Equity Size & Style Map

Based on equity exposure only (72% of total assets).

LargeMidSmall
13%
25%
41%
4%
4%
6%
2%
3%
2%
Large
ValueCoreGrowth
Size
Large
78%
Mid
15%
Small
7%
Style
Value
19%
Core
31%
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 (61% 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 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Composite FactorsRef: Asset Allocation Funds

Based on equity exposure only (72% of total assets).

Intangible Value56.6
Traditional Value38.0
Small-Cap38.2
Quality61.6
Momentum71.1
ⓘ 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 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Factor DetailsRef: Asset Allocation Funds

Based on equity exposure only (72% of total assets).

Valuation
Book-to-Price (NTM)24.6
Sales-to-Price (NTM)34.5
Earnings-to-Price (NTM)5.1
Innovation/IP
R&D / Mkt Cap1.6
Patents / Mkt Cap1.1
Brand
Sales & Marketing / Mkt Cap1.8
Trademarks / Mkt Cap0.06
Human Capital
PhD Employees / Mkt Cap3.9
Top University Alumni / Mkt Cap8.6
Politics
Lobbying Spend / Mkt Cap12.2
AI
AI Employees / Mkt Cap0.98
ⓘ 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 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026. Expense ratio, yield, and turnover as of 10/6/2026. AUM as of 9/30/2026.

Asset Class Exposure

Equity59.3%
Fixed Income12.4%
Cash & Short-Term24.6%
Other3.7%
Short positions of 0.1% 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 (76% of the book). The long book is 126% of net assets, so shares are of the long book rather than of the fund - it is levered by 26%. 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 (2.7% here).

Country Exposure

Level

Based on holdings that carry a country (72% of total assets).

78.6%
78.5%
Other0.2%
15.0%
3.3%
2.2%
1.4%
1.2%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
Other3.7%
6.3%
2.2%
1.6%
Other2.6%
ⓘ Methodology

Shares are percentages of the holdings that carry a country, not portfolio weights. Holdings as of 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Sector Exposure

Level

Based on equity exposure only (72% of total assets).

Technology39.1%
Financials12.6%
Industrials10.7%
Healthcare7.9%
Consumer Discretionary7.8%
Communication6.9%
Consumer Staples4.3%
Energy3.9%
Materials3.1%
Utilities2.2%
Real Estate1.6%
ⓘ 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 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Thematic Exposure

Based on equity exposure only (72% of total assets).

AI Composition

Infrastructure44.2%
Early Adopter24.5%
Laggard31.3%

Magnificent 7

Magnificent 718.6%
Non-Magnificent 781.4%

Old vs New Economy

Old Economy44.6%
New Economy55.4%

Globalization

Multinational62.7%
Exporter7.2%
Importer11.3%
Domestic18.8%

China Exposure

China/HK Domiciled1.4%
Revenue & Operations15.5%
Operations Only14.5%
Revenue Only6.7%
No Material Exposure61.9%

Company Size

Mega (>$500B)33.5%
Large ($70–500B)36.5%
Mid ($10–70B)23.6%
Small ($1–10B)6.2%
Micro (<$1B)0.2%
ⓘ Methodology

Shares are percentages of the fund's classified equity book, renormalized so each split sums to 100% (the equity book is 61% 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 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Holdings

See more rows — create a free account▾

66 positions (top 10 shown, create for full holdings) · 95.5% in funds

#NameTickerWeight %Country
1Mount Vernon Liquid Assets Portfolio-
25.76
USA
2Invesco QQQ Trust Series 1QQQ
7.13
USA
3Vanguard FTSE Developed MarketVTMGX
5.74
USA
4Vanguard Value ETFVIVAX
5.61
USA
5Vanguard Total Stock Market ETVTSMX
4.78
USA
6State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETFSPY
4.69
USA
7iShares Core S&P 500 ETFIVV
4.58
USA
8WisdomTree Floating Rate TreasUSFR
4.44
USA
9Vanguard S&P 500 ETFVFINX
4.30
USA
10iShares MSCI EAFE ETFEFA
4.06
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 5/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

ConcentrationRef: Asset Allocation Funds

Total Holdings17,997
Effective Holdings15.3
Top 10 Weight71.1%
Max Position25.8%
Top Sector (of Net Assets)124%
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 5/31/2026.

Peer Group Rank

See All Peer Groups
Metric
OCIO
ClearShares OCIO ETF
Peer Group
327 funds
Peer Asset Class
1,365 funds
YTD Return
11.10%8.65%697.49%72
1Y Return
12.58%11.06%619.48%67
3Y Return (Ann.)
14.94%15.42%4314.23%56
5Y Return (Ann.)
7.70%7.12%586.38%65
Expense Ratiohigher = cheaper
0.65%0.94%780.80%62
ⓘ 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 Similarity52
Top Overlap
Top Active Tilt
Top Factor Match
Top Return Corr
Top FF Match
FundPeer Group
1GPTCX
GuidePath Conservative Allocation Fund
Allocation - Conservative
Allocation - Conservative
52-----
2TBFG
The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
52-----
3FRGAX
70% Allocation Fund
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
52-----
4BAMA
Brookstone Active ETF
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
52-----
5BETFX
Morningstar Balanced ETF Asset Allocation Portfolio
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
52-----
6SWYGX
Schwab Target 2040 Index Fund
Target Date 2040 & 2045
Target Date 2040 & 2045
47-----
7SWYFX
Schwab Target 2035 Index Fund
Target Date 2030 & 2035
Target Date 2030 & 2035
47-----
8NDAA
Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
47-----
9VEGA
AdvisorShares STAR Global Buy-Write ETF
Options - Income
Options - Income
47-----
10BAGPX
BlackRock 60/40 Target Allocation Fund
Allocation - Moderate
Allocation - Moderate
47-----

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 5/31/2026. 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.