© 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)

QPX

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

QPX

AdvisorShares Q Dynamic Growth ETF

Expense Ratio
1.74%
AUM
$35M
Inception
12/30/2020
1Y Return
+12.8%68th %ilevs 1,365 asset-class peers
·

The fund invests in a diversified mix of ETFs representing all asset classes, including treasury bonds, municipal bonds, investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds, U.S. and foreign equities, commodities, and volatility products. It employs a quantitative model to allocate the portfolio, adjusting monthly based on implied volatility measured by QIX, which influences whether the fund adopts a defensive or aggressive position. The strategy aims to manage tail risk and expected drawdown, resulting in a portfolio that may experience high turnover.

Time Series
–

Performance

NameCumulative ReturnAnn. ReturnAnn. VolSharpeMax DD
QPX
AdvisorShares Q Dynamic Growth ETF
12.8%12.8%16.4%0.55-11.6%
ⓘ 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 10/7/2025 to 10/7/2026.

Trailing Returns

Name
YTD1D5D1M3M6M1Y2Y3Y5YMAX
QPX
AdvisorShares Q Dynamic Growth ETF
9.7%-0.7%1.1%0.1%1.5%14.0%12.8%18.3%21.2%11.4%12.3%
ⓘ Methodology

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

Annual Returns

Name
202020212022202320242025YTD
QPX
AdvisorShares Q Dynamic Growth ETF
0.4%*22.9%-31.2%44.6%17.3%24.1%9.7%
ⓘ 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
QPXUS
AdvisorShares Q Dynamic Growth ETF
-1.9%1.01**-0.070.00-0.21**0.03-0.01-0.13**0.90226
ⓘ 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

Fund Documents(opens the fund company’s site in a new tab)
Family
Registrant
Type
ETF
Asset Class
Peer Asset Class
Asset Allocation
Region
Equity Sleeve Style
Large Growth
Peer Group Benchmark
Prospectus Benchmark
S&P 500 Index
Peer Group
Allocation - Aggressive (327 peers)
1Y Peer Percentile
62
3Y Peer Percentile
95
Expense Ratio
1.74%
AUM
$35M
3Y Flow
+108.9%
Yield
0.00%
Inception
12/30/2020
Holdings (Reported)
996
Turnover
315%
Equity
79%
Derivatives
0%
Net Equity Exposure
79%
Strategy Summary

The fund invests in a diversified mix of ETFs representing all asset classes, including treasury bonds, municipal bonds, investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds, U.S. and foreign equities, commodities, and volatility products. It employs a quantitative model to allocate the portfolio, adjusting monthly based on implied volatility measured by QIX, which influences whether the fund adopts a defensive or aggressive position. The strategy aims to manage tail risk and expected drawdown, resulting in a portfolio that may experience high turnover.

ⓘ Methodology

Expense ratio and its components from the fund's prospectus fee table. Turnover from the SEC annual report (9/1/2026). 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 (78% of total assets).

LargeMidSmall
5%
19%
53%
3%
3%
4%
4%
5%
3%
Large
ValueCoreGrowth
Size
Large
77%
Mid
10%
Small
12%
Style
Value
12%
Core
27%
Growth
60%
ⓘ 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 (79% 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 (78% of total assets).

Intangible Value82.9
Traditional Value25.2
Small-Cap40.7
Quality60.6
Momentum57.2
ⓘ 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 (78% of total assets).

Valuation
Book-to-Price (NTM)17.4
Sales-to-Price (NTM)31.5
Earnings-to-Price (NTM)4.6
Innovation/IP
R&D / Mkt Cap1.7
Patents / Mkt Cap1.0
Brand
Sales & Marketing / Mkt Cap1.9
Trademarks / Mkt Cap0.08
Human Capital
PhD Employees / Mkt Cap4.0
Top University Alumni / Mkt Cap12.4
Politics
Lobbying Spend / Mkt Cap15.5
AI
AI Employees / Mkt Cap1.3
ⓘ 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

Equity66.9%
Cash & Short-Term17.9%
Commodities15.2%
ⓘ 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 (68% of the book). The long book is 118% of net assets, so shares are of the long book rather than of the fund - it is levered by 18%.

Country Exposure

Level

Based on holdings that carry a country (67% of total assets).

99.3%
99.2%
Other0.1%
Other (2 regions)0.7%
ⓘ 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 (78% of total assets).

Technology50.3%
Consumer Discretionary26.0%
Communication15.2%
Industrials2.3%
Financials2.1%
Healthcare1.4%
Real Estate0.9%
Energy0.6%
Materials0.6%
Consumer Staples0.4%
Utilities0.2%
ⓘ 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 (78% of total assets).

AI Composition

Infrastructure59.0%
Early Adopter19.7%
Laggard21.3%

Magnificent 7

Magnificent 738.4%
Non-Magnificent 761.6%

Old vs New Economy

Old Economy28.4%
New Economy71.6%

Globalization

Multinational70.5%
Exporter7.3%
Importer9.4%
Domestic12.9%

China Exposure

China/HK Domiciled0.0%
Revenue & Operations23.3%
Operations Only14.6%
Revenue Only5.2%
No Material Exposure56.9%

Company Size

Mega (>$500B)45.5%
Large ($70–500B)31.2%
Mid ($10–70B)11.3%
Small ($1–10B)11.8%
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 79% 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▾

8 positions · 97.7% in funds

#NameTickerWeight %Country
1Select Sector SPDR Trust (the)XLK
21.43
USA
2iShares TrustIYW
20.05
USA
3Select Sector SPDR Trust (the)XLY
19.25
USA
4SPDR Gold TrustGLD
17.85
USA
5Drey Inst Pref Gov Mm-M-
17.67
USA
6iShares TrustIJR
10.09
USA
7Select Sector SPDR Trust (the)XLC
9.00
USA
8Fidelity Government Portfolio-
2.40
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 6/30/2026. Stock-level data as of 8/31/2026.

ConcentrationRef: Asset Allocation Funds

Total Holdings996
Effective Holdings6.8
Top 10 Weight117.7%
Max Position21.4%
Top Sector (of Net Assets)118%
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
QPX
AdvisorShares Q Dynamic Growth ETF
Peer Group
327 funds
Peer Asset Class
1,365 funds
YTD Return
9.65%8.65%577.49%64
1Y Return
12.78%11.06%629.48%68
3Y Return (Ann.)
21.22%15.42%9514.23%95
5Y Return (Ann.)
11.40%7.12%976.38%98
Expense Ratiohigher = cheaper
1.74%0.94%100.80%9
ⓘ 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 Similarity35
Top Overlap
Top Active Tilt
Top Factor Match
Top Return Corr
Top FF Match
FundPeer Group
1ESGV
VANGUARD ESG U.S. STOCK ETF
US Large Core
US Large Core
35-----
2BLCR
iShares Large Cap Core Active ETF
US Large Core
US Large Core
27-----
3EAAFX
Allspring Asset Allocation Fund
Allocation - Aggressive
Allocation - Aggressive
27-----
4DSI
iShares ESG MSCI KLD 400 ETF
US Large Core
US Large Core
27-----
5IQQQ
ProShares Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF
Options - Income
Options - Income
27-----
6CRTC
Xtrackers US National Critical Technologies ETF
US Large Core
US Large Core
27-----
7NAVFX
Sector Rotation Fund
US Large Core
US Large Core
27-----
8CRDBX
Potomac Defensive Bull Fund
US Large Core
US Large Core
27-----
9GCEQX
Green Century Equity Fund
US Large Core
US Large Core
27-----
10CBTJ
Calamos Bitcoin 80 Series Structured Alt Protection ETF - January
Digital Assets - Futures
Digital Assets - Futures
27-----

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. 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.