Fund index
FCTR
6 articles on this site analyse FCTR — 3 of them head-on.
Measured concentration
as of 2026-06-30FCTR reports 166 positions, but the weights make it behave like about 113.9 equally weighted ones. Computed by this site from the fund's SEC Form N-PORT filing — see what this measure does not tell you and the full table.
Most often compared against
2Measures applied to it
7All articles
6-
CALF vs AVUV: Small-Cap Free Cash Flow vs Small-Cap Value — Two Quality Screens
Both funds screen small-caps for "quality," but on different variables: CALF ranks by free-cash-flow yield, AVUV by valuation crossed with profitability....
-
OMFL vs FCTR: Dynamic Multi-Factor — Rules-Based Rotation vs AI Optimization
Both funds rotate factor exposure by rule, not by forecast — but OMFL blends several factors against a macro-regime signal while FCTR makes a near-binary...
-
BOTZ vs. ROBO vs. AIQ: Three AI & Robotics ETFs Compared
The three funds share a marketing category but not a portfolio: AIQ's 5-year CAGR of 17.2% comes mostly from mega-cap semiconductors and hyperscalers, not...
-
12 Months of Live AI-Quant ETFs vs the S&P 500 — Honest Data Review
Across the full live track record (5Y through May 2026), none of the five AI-quant or rules-based factor ETFs in this review beat SPY's 13.8% CAGR. The...
-
FCTR vs LRGF: Where AI Actually Changes the Multi-Factor Loading
LRGF has returned 13.5% annualized over the past five years; FCTR has returned 3.0%. A 10.5-percentage-point gap that wide is structural, not noise. FCTR's...
-
COWZ vs. FCTR: Free Cash Flow Focus vs. AI Multi-Factor Optimization
Over the trailing five years, COWZ compounded at 10.6% per year while FCTR managed 2.9%, with a deeper drawdown — the simpler rule beat the adaptive model...
Mentions are detected across the full text of every article, so an appearance may be a passing comparison rather than the subject. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell — see the disclaimer.