The S&P 500 fell 4.3% in Q1 2026. The Nasdaq 100 dropped 5.8%. AI disruption fears compressed software valuations in February, and trade policy uncertainty kept sentiment fragile through March. Those headwinds show up clearly in how these managers repositioned.

The weight rotation: from growth and index funds into bonds and energy

The clearest signal is in how average portfolio allocations shifted. Measured as equal-weighted averages across all 193 managers — so no single large fund distorts the picture — the changes break down by theme:

Mega-cap tech shed the most weight — dropping from 10.4% to 9.2% of the average portfolio. Microsoft alone lost half a percentage point of average portfolio weight, the largest single-name decrease in the sample. On the other side, short-duration bonds and energy gained nearly a full percentage point combined — with Exxon Mobil, T-bill ETFs, and ultra-short income funds leading the shift.

Where managers added weight

The individual names gaining the most portfolio weight are almost entirely in energy and fixed income:

• Exxon Mobil (XOM) — average weight +0.27pp, held by 77% of managers at 1.3% each
• JPMorgan Ultra-Short Income (JPST) — average weight +0.17pp, 51 holders averaging 1.8% each
• SPDR 1-3 Month T-Bill (BIL) — average weight +0.16pp, holders averaging 1.6% each
• iShares 7-10 Year Treasury (IEF) — average weight +0.16pp, holders averaging 2.6% each
• Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity (SCHD) — average weight +0.14pp, gaining 4 new holders
• iShares 0-3 Month Treasury (SGOV) — average weight +0.12pp, gaining 5 new holders with 2.5% average allocations
• Chevron (CVX) — average weight +0.10pp, adding 7 new holders to reach 129

The pattern is consistent: shorter duration, higher quality, more yield. Four of the top seven weight gains are in Treasury or ultra-short bond ETFs. The managers who hold them tend to hold them in meaningful size — SGOV averages 2.5% of the portfolio for its holders, and IEF averages 2.6%.

What lost weight: Microsoft, index funds, and growth

The largest weight reductions came from the names you'd expect in a risk-off quarter:

• Microsoft (MSFT) — average weight −0.52pp, still held by 88% of managers but at lower allocations
• SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) — average weight −0.23pp
• Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight (RSP) — average weight −0.20pp
• iShares Core S&P 500 (IVV) — average weight −0.17pp
• Amazon (AMZN) — average weight −0.16pp
• Apple (AAPL) — average weight −0.16pp
• Meta (META) — average weight −0.12pp

Apple and Nvidia remain the two most widely held names in the sample — 90% and 81% of managers, respectively — and their holder counts barely moved. The trimming was more visible in the broad index and growth ETFs. Managers appear to have reduced their exposure to equity beta broadly rather than picking off individual mega-cap names.

Who's adding holders: energy, power infrastructure, industrials

Holder breadth — what share of the 193 managers owns a given name — shifted meaningfully in a few sectors. The names adding the most holders:

• Caterpillar (CAT) — 96 → 110 holders (+15%)
• GE Vernova (GEV) — 79 → 93 holders (+18%)
• ASML (ASML) — 55 → 67 holders (+22%)
• Chubb (CB) — 54 → 66 holders (+22%)
• NextEra Energy (NEE) — 85 → 96 holders (+13%)
• Micron Technology (MU) — 73 → 83 holders (+14%)
• Vertiv Holdings (VRT) — 32 → 42 holders (+31%)
• Valero Energy (VLO) — 39 → 49 holders (+26%)

Energy, power infrastructure, and capital goods dominate the gains. Caterpillar, GE Vernova, NextEra, and Vertiv all sit at the intersection of the data center buildout and domestic industrial spending — a cluster that has attracted new holders even as broad equity exposure shrank. Energy refiners like Valero also gained, suggesting some managers are expressing a tariff-resilient, domestic-revenue preference.

The names losing the most holders are a narrower group. Adobe (ADBE) lost 13 holders (73 → 60), Oracle (ORCL) lost 7, and Salesforce (CRM) lost 6 — all enterprise software names caught in the SaaS multiple compression that defined February's sell-off.

The biggest individual portfolio moves

Looking at the largest single-manager weight changes across the 193 filers (limited to managers with at least $100 million), the defensive rotation is even more visible at the individual level.

The five largest weight increases all went into Treasury and ultra-short bond ETFs:

• Vigilare Wealth Management — moved iShares 0-3 Month Treasury (SGOV) from 5.5% to 30.3% of portfolio (+24.9pp)
• St. Louis Financial Planners — moved SPDR 1-3 Month T-Bill (BIL) from 8.6% to 29.2% (+20.6pp)
• Arlington Trust Co — took Vanguard Short-Term Treasury (VGSH) from near zero to 16.0% (+15.9pp)
• Moulton Wealth Management — initiated a 15.9% position in iShares Treasury Floating Rate (TFLO) and a 15.6% position in WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury (USFR)
• MJT & Associates — moved iShares Core S&P Total U.S. (ITOT) from 10.3% to 21.1% (+10.8pp)

The five largest weight decreases are the mirror image — exits from equity index and active strategies:

• McAlister, Sweet & Associates — cut Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight (RSP) from 18.4% to 2.2% (−16.2pp)
• BancFirst Trust — cut Walmart (WMT) from 15.1% to 1.1% (−14.0pp)
• Vigilare Wealth Management — exited PIMCO Multisector Bond (PYLD) entirely from 12.0% (−12.0pp)
• Moulton Wealth Management — exited SPDR S&P Kensho New Economies (KOMP) from 10.9% and iShares Core U.S. Bond (IUSB) from 8.8%
• InvesTrust — exited Vanguard S&P 500 (VOO) entirely from 9.5% (−9.5pp)

Vigilare's move is especially legible: it sold its entire Pimco active bond position and moved nearly all of it into zero-to-three-month Treasuries. That's not a sector rotation — it's a flight to the shortest, safest duration available.

One fund's contrarian bet on a stock in crisis

Greenhaven Associates, a concentrated value fund with $6.1 billion in assets and roughly 25 positions, made the most notable single-stock move in the sample. It took its allocation to ICON plc (ICLR) from 0.05% to 3.65% of the portfolio — nearly 2 million shares added in a single quarter.

The timing is striking. In February 2026, ICON disclosed an internal accounting investigation that found revenue for 2023 and 2024 may have been overstated by up to 2% per year. The stock dropped roughly 40%, multiple analysts downgraded, and Evercore ISI suspended coverage entirely. BMO Capital upgraded the name to Outperform in late March, but by then Greenhaven had already built its position into the selloff.

Greenhaven also trimmed its General Motors weight by nearly 5 percentage points (20.0% → 15.4%) — still its second-largest position — and exited Millrose Properties (MRP), the land-bank REIT that Lennar spun off in early 2025, selling a 2.2% position entirely. On the buy side, it added weight to Schlumberger (SLB) (+1.1pp), Arrow Electronics (ARW) (+1.1pp), Oshkosh (OSK) (+1.0pp), and Avnet (AVT) (+0.9pp) — continuing its tilt toward industrial cyclicals.

The big picture from a small sample

Across the 193 matched managers, aggregate assets rose slightly — from $126.3 billion to $127.8 billion — suggesting modest net inflows even as the market fell. Average top-10 concentration held steady at 53.6%, and the average position count ticked up from 278 to 290. Managers initiated 6,141 new positions and exited 3,865 — a net expansion, not contraction.

The overall shift adds up to roughly 2 percentage points of average portfolio weight rotating from growth and broad equity beta into income, energy, and defensives. That's meaningful for a single quarter, especially from a cohort that didn't panic — AUM was flat to up, concentration barely moved, and position counts grew.

Whether the bigger institutions that file over the next five weeks followed the same playbook — or used the volatility to add to growth at lower prices — is the question this early data can't answer yet.

Notes

This analysis covers 13F filings with a report date of March 31, 2026, filed between March 31 and April 8, 2026. Of the 262 total filers, 193 have complete position-level data for comparison against their December 31, 2025 filings. Portfolio weights are calculated as equal-weighted averages across all 193 managers (non-holders treated as 0% weight) to prevent any single large fund from distorting the aggregate picture. Individual manager weight changes are limited to firms with at least $100 million in reported assets in both periods. The full filing deadline is May 15, 2026. Ownership changes and individual manager portfolios are available through the changes tracker and manager screener.

First, understand what you're always getting: the shared core

Those 28 shared names represent about 60% of ARKK's holdings by count and 57% of ARKW's. By portfolio weight, roughly 60% of ARKK and about 65% of ARKW sit in securities both funds hold simultaneously. If you hold one of these funds, you already have meaningful exposure to the other's core bet. The heaviest shared names — Tesla (TSLA), Coinbase (COIN), Roku (ROKU), Shopify (SHOP), Robinhood (HOOD), and Palantir (PLTR) — appear near the top of both funds with broadly similar allocations.

One interesting divergence: AMD (AMD) ranks 8th in ARKK at 4.0%, but holds 2nd place in ARKW at 7.0%. The overlap composition also shifted since October 2025: CoreWeave (CRWV) and Alphabet (GOOG) crossed from ARKW-only into both funds, and Broadcom (AVGO) appeared in both simultaneously. On the other side, Gitlab and Pinterest moved from shared to ARKW-only after ARKK dropped them.

Choose ARKK if life sciences and broad disruption matter to you

The holdings exclusive to ARK Innovation are where the funds genuinely diverge. Its two largest ARKK-only positions are both in healthcare: CRISPR Therapeutics (CRSP) at 5.5% and Tempus AI (TEM) at 4.9%. Below those, a cluster of genomics, gene-editing, and diagnostics names adds roughly 20% to ARKK's total weight — a theme with no equivalent in ARKW. Several of these positions moved up sharply from the prior period:

• Beam Therapeutics (BEAM) — 3.5%
• Teradyne (TER) — 3.6%
• Twist Bioscience (TWST) — 2.6%
• 10X Genomics (TXG) — 2.2%
• Archer Aviation (ACHR) — 2.1%
• Illumina (ILMN) — 1.5%
• Intellia Therapeutics (NTLA) — 1.8%
• Natera (NTRA) — 1.4%
• Veracyte (VCYT) — 1.3%
• Recursion Pharmaceuticals (RXRX) — 1.3%

ARKK also holds defense, automation, and aerospace names that don't appear in ARKW: BWX Technologies (BWXT) at 1.2%, Kratos Defense & Security (KTOS) at 1.3%, and Deere & Co (DE) at 1.5%. If the thesis you're expressing is "disruption broadly" — across biotech, robotics, energy, and defense, not just software — ARKK is the more complete vehicle of the two.

Choose ARKW if you want an internet-native and crypto emphasis

ARK Next's exclusive holdings tilt toward internet platforms, cloud software, and digital assets. The largest ARKW-only position is the ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF (ARKB) at 6.4% — an ARK-managed bitcoin product sitting inside the ARK Next portfolio itself. ARKW also holds the 3iQ Ether Staking ETF and 3iQ Solana Staking ETF, creating exposure across bitcoin, ether, and solana in a fund that doesn't otherwise hold any crypto directly. Alphabet (GOOG) moved into the shared category this period, but its ARKW weight jumped to 3.5% — now the fund's 8th-largest position. Other ARKW-only names include:

• CrowdStrike (CRWD) — 1.9%
• Cloudflare (NET) — 1.6%
• Datadog (DDOG) — 1.2%
• DoorDash (DASH) — 1.2%
• Rubrik (RBRK) — 1.2%
• MercadoLibre (MELI) — 1.2%
• Pure Storage (PSTG) — 1.2%
• Netflix (NFLX) — 1.1%
• Gitlab (GTLB) — 1.1%
• Genius Sports (GENI) — 1.1%
• Spotify (SPOT) — 1.0%
• Figma (FIG) — 0.7%
• Pinterest (PINS) — 0.9%
• Unity Software (U) — 0.9%
• Toast (TOST) — 1.0%
• Qualcomm (QCOM) — 1.0%
• Salesforce (CRM) — 0.5%
• Nextdoor (NXDR) — 0.8%

No biotech, no defense, no industrial names — ARKW's unique exposure is exclusively digital. If your interest is in the internet economy specifically, including the crypto infrastructure layer alongside public software names, ARKW is the more focused expression of that thesis.

What holding both actually means

If both funds interest you, it's worth seeing the overlap clearly before combining them. The 28 shared names as of January 2026 — Tesla, AMD, Coinbase, Roku, Shopify, Robinhood, Palantir, Roblox (RBLX), Circle Internet (CRCL), BitMine (BMNR), Amazon (AMZN), NVIDIA (NVDA), CoreWeave (CRWV), TSMC (TSM), Bullish (BLSH), Block (XYZ), Baidu (BIDU), Meta (META), Airbnb (ABNB), DraftKings (DKNG), PagerDuty (PD), Alibaba (BABA), Trade Desk (TTD), Broadcom (AVGO), Alphabet, and a few smaller names — represent most of ARKW's portfolio weight. Combining the two funds adds ARKK's exclusive names on top, but the majority of ARKW is already embedded in ARKK's positions. Three names newly joined the overlap this period (CoreWeave, Alphabet, Broadcom), and two left it (Gitlab, Pinterest) — a reminder that the overlap isn't static.

A different option entirely: the ARK Venture Fund for pre-IPO access

Three-fund overlap by security count, January 2026. ARK Venture Fund's 57 unique holdings dwarf the ETFs' exclusive positions — nearly all of those are private companies.

If neither ARKK nor ARKW has what you're looking for, it may be because the companies you're interested in — SpaceX, OpenAI, xAI, Anthropic — aren't public yet. The ARK Venture Fund holds all of them, alongside dozens of other private companies. Its January 2026 N-PORT filing shows $554 million in assets across 105 holdings — up from $380 million just three months earlier, and roughly 8× from a year ago. Eighty-five of those holdings, representing about 80% of the portfolio, are Level 3 securities: private company stakes valued using unobservable inputs, meaning the fund itself sets the prices rather than markets.

The largest private positions by reported weight — and a few notable changes from October 2025:

• SpaceX — ~10.9% (two share classes; now the largest single private position, up from ~7.7%)
• xAI — ~6.1% across three tranches (up from ~3.7% — the quarter's biggest mover)
• Figure AI — 4.1%
• Anthropic — 2.5%
• Neuralink — 2.7%
• OpenAI Group PBC — ~2.9% across three tranches (down from ~4.3%; the fund's disclosures now reflect OpenAI's public benefit corporation restructuring)
• Groq — ~2.9% (AI inference chips)
• Databricks — ~3.5% across three tranches
• Epic Games — 2.7% (up from 1.2%)
• Zipline — ~3.3% across three tranches (autonomous drone delivery; up from ~0.8%)
• Boom Technology — ~3.2% (supersonic aviation; up sharply from ~0.6%)
• Kalshi — 1.8% (prediction markets platform; new position)
• X-Energy Reactor Company — 1.4% (small modular nuclear; new position)

The fund also holds a mix of publicly traded names at smaller weights — CRISPR Therapeutics, Beam Therapeutics, Robinhood, Tesla, Coinbase, Archer Aviation — many of which overlap with ARKK and ARKW. The critical practical difference: ARK Venture Fund is an interval fund, not an ETF. It does not trade on an exchange. Redemptions are limited to defined windows — typically quarterly — and may be capped. The Level 3 valuations also mean reported weights reflect ARK's own pricing, not market consensus. Both factors are worth understanding clearly before comparing it to the daily-liquidity ETFs.

This data is drawn from N-PORT filings submitted to the SEC for the period ending January 31, 2026. Holdings, weights, and fund sizes reflect those filings and change with each monthly disclosure. You can explore all three funds — and compare any two side by side — using the Funds section and Holdings Overlap tool on FilingFrog.

The signal that's already visible

Not all private credit is locked up. Floating-rate loan funds hold the same underlying asset class — senior secured loans to leveraged companies — but price them using observable market data and offer daily redemptions. Fair value accounting sorts holdings into tiers: Level 1 assets have quoted market prices, Level 2 use observable inputs like dealer quotes or comparable trades, and Level 3 rely on internal models because no external price exists. Floating-rate loan funds are almost entirely Level 2. They can meet redemptions by selling into active loan markets.

These funds have been in net outflow for months. Across four large loan funds in their most recent reporting periods, more than $1.1 billion more left than arrived.

Their outflows are a signal about sentiment, not a structural problem — the assets can be sold. The harder question is what happens when the same investor instinct reaches funds where Level 3 assets dominate and redemptions are capped by design.

Inside the interval fund structure

Interval funds are the registered wrapper most private credit managers use to reach individual investors. They're not ETFs — they don't trade on exchanges. Redemptions are permitted only during quarterly windows, typically capped at 5% of net asset value per quarter. If more investors request out than the cap allows, requests are pro-rated. The structure is intentional: the underlying assets can't be liquidated on demand, so redemptions are rationed to match.

The Level 3 share of each fund's portfolio — priced with no external reference, just the manager's own model — is the most direct measure of how much could realistically be sold quickly if the quarterly cap weren't there.

Blue Owl Alternative Credit's figure exceeds 100% because the fund uses leverage — borrowed capital amplifies the Level 3 exposure relative to net assets. KKR's direct lending fund ($1.6 billion) runs at 97% Level 3 with 77% of holdings also classified as restricted securities, meaning contractual limits govern when and to whom those positions can be sold. Carlyle's fund is the largest at $4.8 billion, holding 505 direct loans and 213 CLO/ABS positions across 499 distinct borrowers — companies like Vensure Employer Services, Argenbright Holdings, and Excelitas Technologies, almost all priced using internal models.

Where the queue is building

The quarterly cap creates a waiting room. Most of the larger, newer interval funds currently report zero or near-zero redemptions — not because investors are content, but because these funds are still in growth mode and the redemption windows have not yet been stress-tested at scale. KKR US Direct Lending has reported $0 in redemptions across every quarter in its filing history. Blue Owl Alternative Credit, which grew from $128 million to $1.2 billion in a single year, likewise shows $0.1 million in total redemptions since inception.

Smaller, older funds tell a different story. Franklin BSP Private Credit turned net-negative in late 2024 and has stayed there for three consecutive quarters — redemptions consistently exceeding new sales at $6–7 million per quarter on a $121 million fund, a run rate that implies steady shrinkage. The Opportunistic Credit Interval Fund (94% Level 3, $151M AUM) also posted net outflows in its last two reported periods.

The more telling data point is Carlyle's history. Its quarterly redemption rate — redemptions as a percentage of net assets — averaged around 2% through 2024. In Q2 2025, it spiked to 6.6%. One quarter later it was back to 4.25%, and by Q4 2025 it had fallen to 3.0%. Whether that spike reflected investors hitting the quarterly limit and getting pro-rated, or simply a seasonal cluster of redemption requests, the filings don't say. What they show is that the rate moved, and moved sharply, before settling back.

What looks different

Not everything in private credit carries the same liquidity profile. A few registered vehicles in this space are built around tradeable instruments rather than bilateral loans.

• BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF — holds CLO debt tranches, 0% Level 3, trades daily on exchange. $196M AUM as of January 2026.
• SPDR SSGA IG Public & Private Credit ETF — blends public and private investment-grade debt, 6.2% Level 3. Exchange-traded, daily liquidity.

These are different products solving a different problem. They offer exposure to the credit market segment without the illiquidity premium — and without the quarterly wait. Redemption rates on these run in line with ordinary ETF flows, not the 3–7% quarterly cadence typical of interval fund structures.

Notes

Holdings and flow data are drawn from N-PORT filings covering periods through January 31, 2026 (for monthly filers) and December 31, 2025 (for quarterly filers). Level 3 percentages are computed as the share of reported portfolio market value classified as fair value Level 3 (unobservable inputs) in each fund's most recent filing. Net flow = total sales minus total redemptions as reported in each period's N-PORT. Interval fund redemption caps are generally set by each fund's prospectus; the 5% quarterly figure is the most common limit in this dataset but individual fund terms vary. Individual fund holdings and history are available through the fund section.

One IPO, two companies folded into one

The merger has compressed what was previously tracked as two separate private market exposures into a single outcome. xAI had merged with X (formerly Twitter) in March 2025 at a combined valuation of $113 billion. SpaceX then acquired the combined xAI/X entity in February 2026 — SpaceX valued at roughly $1 trillion, xAI at approximately $250 billion — creating a combined entity with a reported enterprise value around $1.25 trillion. Any fund that held xAI equity now holds a SpaceX subsidiary. The IPO is the first path to public price discovery across all of it.

xAI's last independent funding event was a $20 billion Series E in January 2026 at a $230 billion valuation, backed by Nvidia, Cisco, Fidelity, the Qatar Investment Authority, and others. Its core asset — the Colossus data center complex in Memphis — had reached roughly 555,000 Nvidia GPUs and two gigawatts of AI training capacity by early 2026 at an estimated capital cost of $18 billion, making it the largest single-site AI training installation in the world.

Which funds have the most at stake

Among registered funds, combined SpaceX and xAI exposure — as reported in December 2025 N-PORT filings — is most concentrated in a handful of growth and private-access strategies. Baron Partners Fund stands out at 33.7% of NAV across both entities, with 32.1% in SpaceX across five share classes and 1.6% in xAI. For context, that means roughly one-third of a $9.7 billion fund's reported value is tied to the outcome of a single listing event.

• Baron Partners Fund — 33.7% combined (SpaceX: 32.1%, xAI: 1.6%)
• Baron Focused Growth Fund — 23.0% combined (SpaceX: 19.3%, xAI: 3.7%)
• Destiny Tech100 Inc. (DXYZ) — 19.5% combined (SpaceX: 16.1%, xAI: 3.4%)
• Baron Asset Fund — 19.2% combined (SpaceX: 12.5%, xAI: 6.7%)
• Baron Global Opportunity Fund — 18.7% (SpaceX only)
• The Private Shares Fund — 16.7% combined (SpaceX: 13.6%, xAI: 3.1%)
• Baron Opportunity Fund — 11.6% combined (SpaceX: 8.8%, xAI: 2.8%)
• StepStone Private Venture and Growth Fund — 10.7% combined (SpaceX: 7.3%, xAI: 3.5%)

Bloomberg reported in February 2026 that Baron Capital's SpaceX ETF stake in its Baron First Principles ETF was approaching the SEC's 15% limit on illiquid assets in registered funds — a constraint that limits how large a private position can grow inside a publicly traded vehicle. An IPO would convert those holdings to publicly traded shares, dissolving that ceiling.

The concentration vs. scale split

The fund with the largest absolute dollar exposure is not a concentrated private-equity vehicle — it's Fidelity Contrafund, a $176 billion diversified growth fund. Contrafund held approximately $5.8 billion in SpaceX and $400 million in xAI as of December 31, 2025, totaling roughly $6.2 billion across both entities inside a fund where the combined weight is just 3.5%. Contrafund actually reduced its SpaceX share count by roughly 6% between Q3 and Q4 2025 — trimming about 294,000 shares — while the position's dollar value nearly doubled due to repricing. Fidelity Advisor New Insights Fund held another $1.3 billion combined at a 5.2% weight.

The two stories — Baron's concentration and Fidelity's scale — describe different kinds of risk. A NAV that is one-third a single pre-IPO stock is a different proposition than a $6 billion holding inside a $176 billion fund, even if both positions are marked using the same unobservable Level 3 inputs.

How funds priced SpaceX heading into the filing

The Q4 2025 repricing provided an early signal. Among funds that held unchanged SpaceX share counts between Q3 and Q4 2025, the most common mark change was approximately +98.6% — a near-doubling of implied per-share value, applied consistently across the Baron funds, The Private Shares Fund, and several smaller holders. Fidelity's funds came in at +88.9% on unchanged balances; BlackRock's fixed-income-oriented funds applied +54.4%. Three distinct pricing clusters for the same underlying company in the same quarter is a common pattern in Level 3 private assets — different fund families update valuations at different intervals and using different reference transactions. The IPO will produce a single public price.

For xAI, equity holders applied a mark change of approximately +106.4% — Baron funds, Fidelity growth strategies, and others holding xAI equity all in the same direction. Credit funds holding xAI debt showed marks of roughly +1–2%, consistent with bond coupon accrual rather than equity repricing. The credit holders represent a separate category: Western Asset, Lord Abbett, Apollo, and Oaktree credit vehicles that participated in xAI's debt issuances hold small bond positions — they are exposed to xAI's credit profile, not to the IPO's equity outcome.

Destiny Tech100 trades at a premium to its own marks

One position worth noting separately: Destiny Tech100 (DXYZ), a NYSE-listed closed-end fund with SpaceX at roughly 16% and xAI at 3.4%, jumped approximately 18% on the day the SpaceX IPO filing became public. DXYZ shares had already been trading at a roughly 50% premium to the fund's reported NAV heading into April 2026 — meaning the market was already pricing SpaceX above what Destiny itself reported. When a closed-end fund trades at a large premium to NAV, it can reflect market expectations that the underlying private valuations will be marked up further, or that a liquidity event is approaching. The IPO filing, if it proceeds, tests both assumptions simultaneously.

Notes

Holdings data is drawn from N-PORT filings covering Q3 and Q4 2025 (September 30 and December 31, 2025). SpaceX and xAI position data reflects fund-reported Level 3 fair value estimates. The SpaceX–xAI merger closed in February 2026; the combined exposure figures reflect pre-merger filing periods, when both companies were tracked separately. Individual fund holdings and history are available on FilingFrog through the fund section. Cross-fund views for each company are at SpaceX and xAI.

Where the value sits as of Q4 2025

Ten companies account for nearly all of the disclosed total. The scale difference between the largest and the rest is significant.

SpaceX: the anchor position, marked up sharply in 2025

SpaceX has been the dominant private position in this dataset since at least Q4 2022 and it isn't close. Total disclosed value grew from $6.6B at end of 2024 to $14.5B by Q4 2025 — up 119% in a single year. Looking at funds that held unchanged positions across both periods, the most common mark change was +128%, with 5 of 10 such funds clustered around that figure. That's a faster pace than 2024, when the same approach showed the most common mark rising about 91%.

Databricks and the AI names: total value surged, and so did marks

Databricks is the most broadly held AI name in this dataset and has one of the cleaner mark signals. Total disclosed value grew from $935M to $3.4B in 2025. Among funds that held unchanged positions, the most common mark change was +105%, with 12 of 23 such funds clustered around that figure — a notably strong consensus for a private security. That's up from a most common mark of around +22% in 2024.

Three other AI names grew dramatically in total disclosed value, but through new investors coming in rather than existing holders marking up. xAI went from 1 fund and $17M at end of 2024 to 113 funds and $2.1B by Q4 2025. Anthropic went from 3 funds and $6M to 38 funds and $1.2B. OpenAI wasn't in this dataset at all until Q3 2025, then reached 57 funds and $1.2B by year-end. For all three, the growth in total value reflects new fund exposure entering the cap table, not markups by existing holders.

Waymo and Canva: large value jumps with two different mark stories

Waymo total disclosed value grew from $73M to $1.3B — a 1,658% increase. But among the 12 fund-series with unchanged positions, the marks split into two distinct clusters: 6 funds marked up around +93%, while 4 funds marked up only about +13%. That kind of dispersion in a private security often reflects one group of funds adopting a newer reference price while others are still carrying an older one. It tends to close over subsequent quarters as fund marks converge.

Canva had a similar total value jump — from $60M to $1.1B — as a large wave of new funds entered. Among the small group of funds with unchanged positions, the most common mark change was around +24%.

Stripe, Anduril: consistent and clear

Stripe total disclosed value grew 59% in 2025, from $370M to $588M. It has the tightest mark consensus of any name with a reasonable sample: 7 of 13 unchanged-position funds clustered around +51%, which was also a step up from prior years. Anduril grew from $43M to $161M in total value as fund count more than quintupled. The two funds that held unchanged positions both marked it up about +185% — consistent with Anduril's 2025 fundraising activity at significantly higher valuations.

Epic Games, Tenstorrent: the total value doesn't tell the whole story

Epic Games is an interesting case. Total disclosed value grew 94% in 2025 — from $240M to $465M — which looks like a strong year. But among the 22 unchanged-position funds, the most common mark change was −4%, with 10 of those funds clustered around that figure. Existing holders were marking it down slightly while new money was coming in at higher prices. Tenstorrent had the opposite: a quiet year in both dimensions. All 5 unchanged-position funds marked it essentially flat at −1%, and total disclosed value barely moved — $47M to $49M.

Redwood Materials and Rad Power Bikes

Redwood Materials grew substantially in total disclosed value — from $20M to $214M — as new funds entered. But the 3 existing funds with unchanged positions all marked it down about −21%, reversing direction from +24% the prior year. The new investors came in while long-term holders were marking down. Rad Power Bikes is starker: total value fell from $13M to essentially nothing, and all 6 unchanged-position funds marked it down −99%. That's one of the clearest signals in this dataset regardless of how you measure it.

This data comes from N-PORT P filings covering Q4 2022 through Q4 2025. FilingFrog tracks 18 private companies across 169 reporting funds in this dataset. To explore individual fund portfolios or see which funds hold specific private positions, visit the fund holdings explorer.

Explore Fund Holdings

Several threads emerged across the data this quarter — some resolving, some still escalating.

Starboard and TripAdvisor reach a settlement

In February, Starboard Value LP sent a letter to TripAdvisor (TRIP) criticizing the board for a "long history of poor performance" and announcing its intent to nominate a majority slate of director candidates. Starboard, holding roughly 9.4% of shares, called for an objective review of strategic alternatives including a potential sale of the company. By March 22, the two sides had reached an agreement: TripAdvisor would expand its board from eight to ten seats, immediately appoint two of Starboard's recommended independent directors, and allow Starboard to designate two additional nominees for the 2026 annual meeting. Two incumbent directors agreed not to stand for re-election. The stock rose about 7% on the news. The agreement came with standstill provisions keeping Starboard from running a proxy contest through the 2027 cycle — a typical resolution for this kind of campaign, with the activist getting board influence in exchange for backing down from an escalated fight.

An industry rival moves on Sturm Ruger

The situation at Sturm, Ruger & Company (RGR) is less a traditional activist campaign and more an attempted acquisition by a competitor. Beretta Holding S.A., the Italian firearms conglomerate, has been building a stake in Ruger since late 2024 and now holds 9.95%. In February 2026, Beretta nominated four directors for Ruger's 2026 annual meeting. On March 25, it went further: Beretta sent a letter to Ruger's board stating it was prepared to launch a tender offer for up to 20.05% of outstanding shares at $44.80 per share — about a 20% premium to the 60-day volume-weighted average price — conditional on Ruger granting an exemption from its poison pill, which the board had adopted in October 2025. The offer was conditioned on that exemption being granted by March 31. Beretta's stated goal is to reach 30% ownership, which would give it a meaningful blocking position even short of control. Ruger's board has not publicly indicated it will grant the exemption.

A shipping battle turns into a proxy war

Diana Shipping Inc. (DSX) has been pursuing Genco Shipping & Trading (GNK) since November 2025, when it submitted an initial $20.60 per share proposal to acquire all shares it does not already own. Genco's board rejected that offer, then suggested a counterproposal for Genco to acquire Diana instead. Diana rejected the counterproposal, calling it unactionable. In March 2026, Diana raised its offer to $23.50 per share and lined up $1.433 billion in committed financing from DNB Carnegie and Nordea, plus a side agreement with Star Bulk Carriers (SBLK) to acquire 16 of Genco's vessels for $470.5 million upon deal close. Genco's board rejected the revised offer on March 19, calling it substantially undervalued. On March 23, Diana filed a preliminary proxy statement to replace Genco's entire board with six nominated directors and to force a strategic alternatives process. Diana holds 14.8% of Genco's shares. The annual meeting, where this contest will play out, has not yet been scheduled.

Nelson Peltz converts a campaign into a buyout

The Janus Henderson Group (JHG) story illustrates one way activist campaigns can end. Trian Fund Management — the vehicle through which Nelson Peltz invests — built a roughly 20% stake in the asset manager over a period of years. Rather than agitating from the outside, Trian moved toward a full acquisition: Janus Henderson agreed to be acquired by Trian and General Catalyst in an all-cash deal originally priced at $49 per share. A competing proposal from Victory Capital emerged during the process. On March 24, Trian and General Catalyst raised their offer to $52 per share — their "best and final" price — and Janus Henderson's board unanimously reaffirmed its recommendation. The shareholder vote is scheduled for April 16, 2026, with the transaction expected to close in mid-2026. At $52, the deal values Janus Henderson at approximately $7.4 billion.

Smaller campaigns with sharper language

Not all 13D activist activity involves large firms or public battles. Several Q1 filings made pointed claims about management performance and board accountability at smaller companies:

• Pacira BioSciences (PCRX) — Doma Perpetual Capital Management, holding 7.3%, nominated three directors in March and called on the board to replace CEO Frank Lee immediately. Doma cited a 76% stock decline over the prior decade and called the company's executive compensation "exorbitant and unmerited." Pacira responded that it had met with Doma 12 times and that the fund's suggestions didn't go beyond what management was already evaluating.
• Distribution Solutions Group (DSGR) — LKCM Headwater Investments, which already controls 78.7% of the company, submitted a non-binding proposal on March 14 to acquire the remaining shares at $29.50, in a roughly $2 billion go-private transaction. The rationale: reduced SEC reporting burdens and greater operational flexibility. The board said it would review the proposal.
• Mawson Infrastructure Group (MIGI) — Endeavor Blockchain, holding approximately 46% of shares, filed a consent solicitation on March 16 seeking to remove the entire three-person board. Endeavor cited a near-95% decline in market capitalization since 2021, from roughly $450 million to about $15 million. Mawson responded by adopting a shareholder rights plan.

What the filings show about intent

One pattern across Q1: a number of positions that were originally reported on the shorter Schedule 13G — the passive investor form — were converted to 13D filings, signaling a shift from observation to engagement. Veradace Capital Management, which had filed a 13G on SoundThinking Inc. (SSTI) in January, converted to a 13D in March after what it described as a "concerning" meeting with management, noting several years of underperformance. The change in form type is a public signal of escalating intent, even before any specific demands are announced.

The 13D data shows where large shareholders are asking for change — and where boards are agreeing to it, fighting it, or being replaced entirely. The filings cover a wide range of tactics, from standstill agreements and board seats to tender offers, consent solicitations, and full buyouts. How each situation resolves tends to be specific to the company and the people involved, but the filings themselves make the opening positions visible.

All data referenced here is drawn from Schedule 13D and Schedule 13D/A filings submitted to the SEC through March 27, 2026. Every filing covers issuers and filers for which the beneficial owner holds 5% or more of the relevant class of equity securities. Company-level detail and ownership history are available through FilingFrog's security pages, and recent changes can be tracked through the changes section.

ETF inflows nearly doubled quarter over quarter; mutual fund outflows narrowed sharply

In Q3 2025, mutual funds in aggregate saw $300 billion more leave than enter. By Q4, that gap had compressed to $39 billion in net outflows. A meaningful chunk of the Q3 pressure traces to a small number of very large Vanguard index funds — the Vanguard 500 Index Fund alone reported $186 billion in net redemptions during Q3, a figure that reversed to $31 billion in net inflows by Q4. ETF flows moved in the opposite direction: $102 billion in Q3 became $193 billion in Q4, continuing the structural trend of capital flowing toward the exchange-traded wrapper.

Across the year in this dataset, ETF net inflows have stayed positive every quarter while mutual fund flows have oscillated between slight positives and significant negatives. That pattern is consistent with broader industry data showing record ETF inflows in 2025 alongside sustained mutual fund attrition.

ETFs carry more concentrated positions; mutual funds hold more names

ETFs in this dataset averaged 202 holdings per fund in Q4, compared to 362 for mutual funds. The top-10 concentration tells a related story: ETFs averaged 51.3% in their top-10 positions, while mutual funds averaged 46.5%. That gap is partly structural — index ETFs that track narrow benchmarks will naturally concentrate in a small number of names — but it also reflects how the two vehicles are being used. The 159 new ETFs that appeared in the Q4 dataset for the first time, against just 9 new mutual funds, suggests where new product development is focused.

Microsoft, NVIDIA, and Broadcom top the equity universe by weight and breadth

Among the 34,000-plus distinct ticker-level positions tracked across equity-like holdings in Q4 2025, a handful of names stand out both by the number of funds holding them and by average portfolio weight. The Mag-7 names dominate the top of the fund-count table, but a few names beyond that cluster carry notably high average weights:

Average portfolio weight among funds holding each name, equity-like holdings, Q4 2025. Fund counts shown at right.

• Microsoft (MSFT) — held by 453 funds, average weight 5.1%
• NVIDIA (NVDA) — held by 401 funds, average weight 6.3%
• Broadcom (AVGO) — held by 360 funds, average weight 3.1%
• Apple (AAPL) — held by 351 funds, average weight 4.9%
• Amazon (AMZN) — held by 403 funds, average weight 3.8%
• Meta Platforms (META) — held by 405 funds, average weight 2.7%

NVIDIA's 6.3% average weight across 401 funds is the highest among the most widely held names — meaning funds that own it tend to give it a sizable share of the portfolio, not just a token position.

A cluster of semiconductor names appears broadly held

Looking across the semiconductor space, several names show up in well over 200 funds each — not just the ETF-driven mega-names, but also equipment and memory companies that may reflect broader AI-infrastructure positioning:

• NVIDIA (NVDA) — 401 funds, $99B total market value
• Broadcom (AVGO) — 360 funds, $77B
• Texas Instruments (TXN) — 228 funds
• Applied Materials (AMAT) — 231 funds
• Lam Research (LRCX) — 221 funds
• Micron Technology (MU) — 222 funds, $17B
• KLA Corporation (KLAC) — 189 funds
• ASML Holding (ASML) — 178 funds, average weight 2.0%

The breadth here is notable — these are not just index inclusions but names appearing broadly across active and passive portfolios alike. Whether that reflects conviction on AI hardware demand or simply the weight of index-driven flows, the cluster is one of the denser in the data.

Some large ETFs saw the sharpest turnarounds in flows quarter over quarter

A few specific funds saw the most dramatic swings between Q3 and Q4. The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust went from $13 billion in net outflows in Q3 to $24 billion in net inflows in Q4 — a $37 billion swing in a single quarter. The iShares Core S&P 500 ETF added another $12 billion improvement. On the value side, the iShares S&P 500 Value ETF saw flows move from near-flat to $5 billion positive, and the iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF shifted from slight outflows to $3.5 billion inflows. The VanEck Semiconductor ETF and iShares Semiconductor ETF both saw inflows improve by roughly $1.8 billion each, moving from slight outflows in Q3 to positive territory in Q4.

Some mutual funds tightened their portfolios; a few concentrated further

Among the larger active mutual funds, Q4 brought a few concentration increases worth noting. Baron Growth Fund moved from 24 to 19 holdings while its top-10 concentration rose from 76% to 87% — a tighter book, with Arch Capital Group and MSCI Inc. as its two largest positions. Janus Henderson Global Equity Income Fund reduced holdings from 85 to 76 while its top-10 concentration rose nearly 10 percentage points. These are individual fund decisions, but they run somewhat against the broader drift in the data, where average mutual fund holdings stayed roughly flat quarter over quarter.

This data comes from SEC Form N-PORT filings covering the period ending December 31, 2025, compared to September 30, 2025. The 6,762 funds and their holdings are searchable at FilingFrog's securities page, and quarter-over-quarter shifts can be explored on the changes page.

Q4 2025 had some large swings driven by completed deals and company-specific news. A few of the patterns underneath those moves are worth looking at more closely.

When deals close, capital relocates

Several of the largest holder-count changes in Q4 came from acquisitions that closed during the quarter — and they illustrate how the acquirer and acquired tend to mirror each other in the ownership data.

Kellanova (KEL) was taken over by Mars on December 11, dropping from 863 institutional holders to nearly none. Interpublic Group (IPG) was absorbed into Omnicom on November 26, falling from 623 holders to almost zero. Mr. Cooper Group was acquired by Rocket Companies (RKT) in an all-stock deal that closed October 1 — nearly all of its 421 institutional holders exited as their shares converted into Rocket stock.

In each case, the acquirer's holder count moved in the opposite direction. Omnicom (OMC) gained 17% more institutional holders in the same quarter it absorbed IPG. Rocket Companies gained 48% more — a jump that, given the all-stock structure of the Mr. Cooper deal, likely reflects former Mr. Cooper holders now appearing as Rocket holders. The underlying ownership data is doing what you'd expect, but it's easy to misread Rocket's Q4 holder surge as purely organic institutional interest when much of it traces back to a single transaction.

Oracle and Fiserv: two different stories, same outcome

Oracle (ORCL) lost about 7% of its institutional holders in Q4 — a broad move across manager sizes, not a handful of large funds trimming. The reason became clearer on December 10, when Oracle reported fiscal Q2 2026 results: revenue came in at $16.1 billion against expectations of $16.2 billion, while the company announced it would spend $50 billion in capital expenditures for the year, up sharply from prior guidance. Free cash flow turned significantly negative for the third consecutive quarter. The stock fell roughly 11% on the day. Investors weren't necessarily souring on Oracle's long-term AI infrastructure positioning, but the combination of a revenue miss and an aggressive spending announcement prompted many to step back and reassess the near-term picture.

Fiserv (FISV) was a more acute situation. On October 29, the company reported Q3 2025 earnings that missed on both revenue and earnings per share, and then slashed its full-year EPS guidance by roughly 17%. The stock fell 44% in a single session — its worst day on record. The core issue was that Argentina's economic stabilization had removed a tailwind that had been contributing around 10 percentage points to Fiserv's organic growth in 2024; that contribution collapsed to near 2 points in 2025. By the time Q4 13F filings were filed, Fiserv had lost more than 20% of its institutional holder count, distributed broadly including among smaller managers.

Fixed-income ETFs approaching maturity

Three defined-maturity bond ETFs — iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term (IBDQ), Invesco BulletShares 2025 Corporate Bond (BSCP), and iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term (IBTF) — each lost close to all of their institutional holders as they reached their maturity dates by December 31. This is expected behavior for a product designed to wind down at a specific date. The more interesting question, as with the M&A exits, is where that capital moved next.

Semiconductors: a lot of names moving in the same direction

The most distinctive pattern in Q4 was the number of semiconductor and semiconductor-adjacent companies that gained institutional holders simultaneously. This wasn't one or two names — it was a broad cluster spanning memory, chips, equipment, optical interconnect, and storage:

• Micron Technology (MU) — +21%
• SanDisk (SNDK) — +39% (returned to independent trading in February 2025 after being spun out of Western Digital)
• Coherent (COHR) — +24%
• Teradyne (TER) — +22%
• Western Digital (WDC) — +18%
• Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) — +10%
• Lam Research (LRCX) — +8%
• Applied Materials (AMAT) — +7%
• Intel (INTC) — +6%
• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSM) — +5%
• Broadcom (AVGO) — +3%

The individual percentages range from modest to meaningful. What stands out is that they all point the same way across parts of the supply chain that don't always move together. When interest in a theme is concentrated in one or two names, it can reflect a specific stock thesis. When it spreads across a dozen names in different sub-segments — and across institutions of many different sizes — it looks more like a shared view on where investment is heading.

Micron's case is the clearest data point: its data center revenue grew 137% year-over-year in fiscal 2025, driven by demand for High Bandwidth Memory used in AI accelerators. But the breadth of the semiconductor move in Q4 went well beyond memory.

Healthcare names gaining in parallel

Four major healthcare companies each grew their institutional holder base in Q4:

• Eli Lilly (LLY) — +6%
• Intuitive Surgical (ISRG) — +9%
• Merck (MRK) — +5%
• Amgen (AMGN) — +5%

None of these numbers is dramatic on its own. Four large, unrelated healthcare companies each seeing their holder base grow in the same quarter is a different picture than if only one had moved. Eli Lilly carries over $800 billion in aggregate institutional value — by far the largest healthcare position in the FilingFrog dataset — and still added 6% more holders in Q4.

Financial services

Several financial names saw meaningful holder growth outside of deal-driven activity:

• F&G Annuities & Life (FG) — +93%
• Morgan Stanley (MS) — +6%
• American Express (AXP) — +5%
• Citigroup (C) — +6%

New companies in the dataset

Three spinoffs appeared in 13F filings for the first time in Q4: QNITY Electronics (spun out of DuPont), Solstice Advanced Materials (from Honeywell), and Magnum Ice Cream (from Unilever). Each picked up hundreds of new institutional holders in their first quarter as public independents — QNITY and Solstice each crossed 900.

Spinoffs create a clean starting point: every institution building a position is doing so from zero at the same time. How that initial holder base evolves over the next few quarters is usually more informative than the opening snapshot.

All of the data referenced here is drawn from Q4 2025 13F filings, comparing institutional positions as of December 31, 2025 against September 30, 2025. Every company, manager, and quarter-over-quarter change in this analysis is available to explore on FilingFrog — through individual security pages, manager profiles, or the full quarterly change dataset.