© 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)

PCPP

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

PCPP

Porter & Company Porter Portfolio Index ETF

Expense Ratio
0.75%
AUM
$28M
Inception
6/8/2026
·

The fund invests at least 80% of its total assets in component securities of the Porter Portfolio Index. The fund is non-diversified.

Time Series
–

Performance

NameCumulative ReturnAnn. ReturnAnn. VolSharpeMax DD
PCPP
Porter & Company Porter Portfolio Index ETF
8.0%26.2%13.8%1.66-5.1%
ⓘ 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 6/8/2026 to 10/7/2026.

Trailing Returns

Name
YTD1D5D1M3M6M1Y2Y3Y5YMAX
PCPP
Porter & Company Porter Portfolio Index ETF
7.3%-0.2%1.3%-2.1%1.8%7.3%
ⓘ 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
PCPP
Porter & Company Porter Portfolio Index ETF
7.3%
ⓘ 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
Asset Allocation
Region
Equity Sleeve Style
Large Value
Peer Group Benchmark
Peer Group
Allocation - Aggressive (327 peers)
Expense Ratio
0.75%
AUM
$28M
Inception
6/8/2026
Holdings (Reported)
2,386
Turnover
0%
Equity
62%
Derivatives
0%
Net Equity Exposure
57%
Strategy Summary

The fund invests at least 80% of its total assets in component securities of the Porter Portfolio Index. The fund 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 6/30/2026. Summary may be from an older prospectus.

Equity Size & Style Map

Based on equity exposure only (57% of total assets).

LargeMidSmall
6%
17%
24%
13%
7%
4%
20%
9%
-
Large
ValueCoreGrowth
Size
Large
47%
Mid
24%
Small
29%
Style
Value
40%
Core
32%
Growth
28%
ⓘ 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 (62% 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.

Composite FactorsRef: Asset Allocation Funds

Based on equity exposure only (57% of total assets).

Intangible Value25.1
Traditional Value61.4
Small-Cap63.3
Quality79.2
Momentum15.6
ⓘ 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 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

Factor DetailsRef: Asset Allocation Funds

Based on equity exposure only (57% of total assets).

Valuation
Book-to-Price (NTM)34.7
Sales-to-Price (NTM)38.9
Earnings-to-Price (NTM)6.3
Innovation/IP
R&D / Mkt Cap1.4
Patents / Mkt Cap0.22
Brand
Sales & Marketing / Mkt Cap1.9
Trademarks / Mkt Cap0.04
Human Capital
PhD Employees / Mkt Cap3.6
Top University Alumni / Mkt Cap6.4
Politics
Lobbying Spend / Mkt Cap9.6
AI
AI Employees / Mkt Cap0.63
ⓘ 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

Equity54.1%
Fixed Income21.6%
Cash & Short-Term2.1%
Commodities6.1%
Digital Assets11.6%
Other4.4%
ⓘ 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 (23% of the book). Cash & Short-Term includes 1.2% of net assets the filing does not itemise. 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
81.6%
74.9%
6.6%
Other0.1%
16.3%
6.9%
5.9%
1.4%
Other2.0%
2.1%
1.2%
Other0.9%
ⓘ 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 (57% of total assets).

47.3%
11.2%
10.3%
9.2%
7.8%
5.2%
5.1%
2.1%
1.4%
0.3%
0.2%
ⓘ 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 (57% of total assets).

AI Composition

Infrastructure7.1%
Early Adopter17.7%
Laggard75.3%

Magnificent 7

Magnificent 71.6%
Non-Magnificent 798.4%

Old vs New Economy

Old Economy84.4%
New Economy15.6%

Globalization

Multinational28.1%
Exporter0.0%
Importer26.4%
Domestic45.5%

China Exposure

China/HK Domiciled1.1%
Revenue & Operations1.6%
Operations Only15.0%
Revenue Only0.0%
No Material Exposure82.4%

Company Size

Mega (>$500B)9.3%
Large ($70–500B)28.0%
Mid ($10–70B)33.8%
Small ($1–10B)28.9%
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 62% 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▾

32 positions (top 10 shown, create for full holdings) · 22.6% in funds

#NameTickerWeight %SectorIndustryCountry
1Franklin Bitcoin ETFEZBC
11.62
--USA
2Federated Hermes Short Duration High Yield ETFFHYS
8.16
--USA
3iShares 1-5 Year Investment Grade Corporate Bd ETFIGSB
7.93
--USA
4iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Bond ETFSHY
6.46
--USA
5SPDR Gold SharesGLD
6.15
--USA
6Axis Capital HoldingsAXS
5.87
FinancialsInsuranceBM
7Franco-NevadaFNV
5.65
MaterialsPrecious MetalsCAN
8Skyward Specialty Insurance GroupSKWD
5.64
FinancialsInsuranceUSA
9Kinsale Capital GroupKNSL
5.06
FinancialsInsuranceUSA
10W. R. BerkleyWRB
4.38
FinancialsInsuranceUSA
ⓘ 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 Holdings2,386
Effective Holdings17.8
Top 10 Weight66.9%
Max Position11.6%
Top Sector (of Net Assets)40%
Top Country (of Net Assets)79%
ⓘ 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
PCPP
Porter & Company Porter Portfolio Index ETF
Peer Group
327 funds
Peer Asset Class
1,365 funds
YTD Return
7.34%8.65%367.49%49
1Y Return
---
3Y Return (Ann.)
---
5Y Return (Ann.)
---
Expense Ratiohigher = cheaper
0.75%0.94%700.80%53
ⓘ 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 Similarity29
Top Overlap
Top Active Tilt
Top Factor Match
FundPeer Group
1AAAA
Amplius Aggressive Asset Allocation ETF
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
29---
2LOTI
Liberty One Tactical Income ETF
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
26---
3LOGOX
Scharf Multi-Asset Opportunity Fund
US Large Value
US Large Value
25---
4VBINX
VANGUARD BALANCED INDEX FUND
Allocation - Moderate
Allocation - Moderate
25---
5MDAAX
NYLIM Moderate ETF Allocation Fund
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
24---
6PHTJX
Principal LifeTime Hybrid 2035 Fund
Target Date 2030 & 2035
Target Date 2030 & 2035
23---
7QMLFX
Quantified Market Leaders Fund
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
Allocation - Tactical/Dynamic
23---
8PHTNX
Principal LifeTime Hybrid 2030 Fund
Target Date 2030 & 2035
Target Date 2030 & 2035
22---
9SWBGX
Schwab MarketTrack Balanced Portfolio
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
22---
10BAMA
Brookstone Active ETF
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
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.