ETF & Fund X-Ray · Four Fund Analysts · Adversarially Tested

What does your ETF
actually own?

Four AI analysts X-ray any ETF or fund: real holdings, hidden concentration, fee drag in dollar terms, and how much you already own via a broad index. Then a dedicated bear case asks whether you'd be better off in something cheaper and more boring.

The Fund X-Ray Team

Macro Strategist

The Holdings Analyst

Phase 1 — Fund X-Ray

Identifies what a fund actually owns beneath its marketing name: top holdings, concentration risk, sector/valuation tilts the category label doesn't advertise, and how much of it you already own via SPY, QQQ, or IWM.

Fundamental Analyst

The Fee Structure Analyst

Phase 1 — Fund X-Ray

Turns the expense ratio into real numbers: what it costs you over 5, 10, and 20 years, how it compares to the category average, and whether holdings turnover is quietly adding trading and tax drag.

Quant Analyst

The ETF Quant

Phase 2 — Data Validation

Cross-checks every claim against the raw data, runs volatility and drawdown analysis on the fund itself, and assigns the ETF X-Ray Score 1–10 — diversification, cost efficiency, and structural risk, not vibes.

The Contrarian

The ETF Bear Case

Phase 3 — The Attack

Her mandate: prove you'd be better off in a cheap, boring benchmark fund instead. Closet indexing, concentration blowup risk, fee-drag compounding, style fade, and low-AUM survival risk — all named, all quantified.

The 4-Phase X-Ray Protocol

01

Fund X-Ray

Holdings, concentration, sector tilts, and benchmark overlap established alongside expense ratio, turnover, and issuer risk.

02

Data Validation

Every claim cross-checked against raw data. Volatility and drawdown computed. ETF X-Ray Score assigned.

03

The Great Debate

The ETF Bear Case attacks. The Holdings and Fee analysts defend. The Quant referees on the numbers.

04

ETF X-Ray Report

One report: X-Ray Score 1–10, benchmark overlap table, real fee cost, and a plain-English worth-it verdict.

What You Get

ETF X-Ray Score 1–10

A scored verdict built from diversification quality, cost efficiency vs category, and structural risk — not the fund's marketing pitch.

Benchmark Overlap Table

Exactly how much of this fund you already own via SPY, QQQ, or IWM, with the shared tickers named. Stop paying twice for the same exposure.

Real Fee Cost

The expense ratio translated into actual pounds/dollars lost over 5, 10, and 20 years, benchmarked against the category average.

The Hidden Factor Bet

The sector tilt or valuation skew the fund's name and category label never mention — surfaced explicitly, with the numbers behind it.

Concentration Risk

Top-1 and top-10 weight, and what happens to the fund if its largest holding has a genuinely bad year.

Worth-It Verdict

A direct HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW conviction call on whether this fund earns its cost and complexity versus a cheap alternative.

Macro Strategist
Fundamental Analyst
Quant Analyst
The Contrarian

Stop guessing what's inside your fund

Enter any ETF ticker. Four specialist agents debate what it actually owns, what it actually costs, and whether it's worth the money — in about 8–10 minutes.

Start Free — No credit card

Not financial advice. For informational purposes only.