© 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)

PFJHX

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

PFJHX

PFG Janus Henderson Balanced Strategy

Expense Ratio
2.48%
AUM
$296M
Inception
7/17/2026
·

The fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its net assets, plus any amounts of borrowing, in shares of mutual funds and ETFs advised by Janus Henderson. Each Janus Henderson underlying fund and Other underlying fund invests in equity and/or fixed-income securities, to obtain exposure to the broad equity and fixed income markets.

Time Series

Performance

No return history for PFJHX (PFG Janus Henderson Balanced Strategy). The returns, correlation and regression cards are hidden.
SnapshotAs ofvsⓘ

Fund Profile

Family
Registrant
Type
Mutual Fund
Asset Class
Peer Asset Class
Asset Allocation
Region
Equity Sleeve Style
Large Core
Peer Group Benchmark
Peer Group
Allocation - Conservative (170 peers)
Expense Ratio
2.48%
AUM
$296M
Yield
0.26%
Inception
7/17/2026
Holdings (Reported)
1,950
Equity
63%
Derivatives
0%
Option Notional
5%
Strategy Summary

The fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its net assets, plus any amounts of borrowing, in shares of mutual funds and ETFs advised by Janus Henderson. Each Janus Henderson underlying fund and Other underlying fund invests in equity and/or fixed-income securities, to obtain exposure to the broad equity and fixed income markets.

ⓘ Methodology

Expense ratio and its components 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 (62% of total assets).

LargeMidSmall
10%
30%
56%
-
1%
1%
1%
-
1%
Large
ValueCoreGrowth
Size
Large
96%
Mid
2%
Small
2%
Style
Value
11%
Core
32%
Growth
57%
ⓘ 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 (63% 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: Asset Allocation Funds

Based on equity exposure only (62% of total assets).

Intangible Value69.0
Traditional Value21.7
Small-Cap12.0
Quality81.8
Momentum49.4
ⓘ 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 Asset Allocation 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: Asset Allocation Funds

Based on equity exposure only (62% of total assets).

Valuation
Book-to-Price (NTM)15.5
Sales-to-Price (NTM)21.3
Earnings-to-Price (NTM)4.5
Innovation/IP
R&D / Mkt Cap1.3
Patents / Mkt Cap0.50
Brand
Sales & Marketing / Mkt Cap1.2
Trademarks / Mkt Cap0.05
Human Capital
PhD Employees / Mkt Cap2.7
Top University Alumni / Mkt Cap7.7
Politics
Lobbying Spend / Mkt Cap11.1
AI
AI Employees / Mkt Cap0.78
ⓘ 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 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.

Asset Class Exposure

Equity62.2%
Fixed Income34.3%
Cash & Short-Term3.3%
Other0.1%
ⓘ 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 (100% of the book). 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
97.3%
95.6%
1.5%
Other0.2%
Developed Ex-US2.2%
Other (1 region)0.5%
ⓘ 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 (62% of total assets).

Technology34.3%
Financials16.4%
Healthcare11.5%
Consumer Discretionary10.2%
Communication10.1%
Industrials8.9%
Consumer Staples2.6%
Energy2.6%
Utilities2.2%
Materials1.1%
Real Estate0.0%
ⓘ 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 (62% of total assets).

AI Composition

Infrastructure51.2%
Early Adopter24.2%
Laggard24.6%

Magnificent 7

Magnificent 728.6%
Non-Magnificent 771.4%

Old vs New Economy

Old Economy37.4%
New Economy62.6%

Globalization

Multinational68.1%
Exporter7.1%
Importer14.8%
Domestic10.0%

China Exposure

China/HK Domiciled0.2%
Revenue & Operations9.2%
Operations Only19.9%
Revenue Only6.7%
No Material Exposure64.1%

Company Size

Mega (>$500B)45.1%
Large ($70–500B)49.0%
Mid ($10–70B)4.1%
Small ($1–10B)1.9%
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 63% 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▾

7 positions · 99.7% in funds

#NameTickerWeight %Country
1Janus Investment FundJABAX
79.72
USA
2Janus Investment FundJSVAX
5.11
USA
3Janus Detroit Street TrustVNLA
4.92
USA
4Janus Investment FundJAGIX
3.51
USA
5Janus Investment FundJAMRX
3.50
USA
6Janus Detroit Street TrustJMBS
2.98
USA
7BlackRock Liquidity Funds-
0.40
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 7/31/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

ConcentrationRef: Asset Allocation Funds

Total Holdings1,950
Effective Holdings1.6
Top 10 Weight100.1%
Max Position79.7%
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 7/31/2026.

Peer Group Rank

See All Peer Groups
Metric
PFJHX
PFG Janus Henderson Balanced Strategy
Peer Group
170 funds
Peer Asset Class
1,365 funds
YTD Return
---
1Y Return
---
3Y Return (Ann.)
---
5Y Return (Ann.)
---
Expense Ratiohigher = cheaper
2.48%0.94%20.80%2
ⓘ Methodology

Sparkline's own holdings-based peer taxonomy (488 share classes across 170 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 Similarity88
Top Overlap
Top Active Tilt
Top Factor Match
FundPeer Group
1JABAX
Janus Henderson Balanced Fund
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
88---
2JABLX
Janus Henderson VIT Balanced Portfolio
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
88---
3TWBIX
Balanced Fund
Allocation - Moderate
Allocation - Moderate
75---
4SCAUX
Invesco Income Advantage U.S. Fund
Options - Income
Options - Income
70---
5DDFL
Innovator Equity Dual Directional 15 Buffer ETF - July
Options - Buffer/Defined Outcome
Options - Buffer/Defined Outcome
66---
6TSPX
Twin Oak Active Opportunities ETF
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
64---
7CRDBX
Potomac Defensive Bull Fund
US Large Core
US Large Core
64---
8DDFZ
Innovator Equity Dual Directional 15 Buffer ETF - June
Options - Buffer/Defined Outcome
Options - Buffer/Defined Outcome
64---
9DDTL
Innovator Equity Dual Directional 10 Buffer ETF - July
Options - Buffer/Defined Outcome
Options - Buffer/Defined Outcome
64---
10GMMA
GammaRoad Market Navigation ETF
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
64---

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.