Impressions about which fund dominates circulate constantly and are usually assembled from whichever launch attracted the most attention at the time. This replaces the impression with a ranking by what each of them actually holds today.

The share printed alongside each fund is what turns a list into a concentration reading. The ranking says who is largest, which is rarely a surprise; the share says by how much, and that is the part that changes as the complex matures.

What it actually measures

Ranking on holdings rather than on assets under management is the honest basis for a table of this kind. It removes the effect of price entirely and compares the funds on the coin each of them actually controls.

The gap between first and second carries considerably more than either position on its own. A complex where one fund holds most of the coin behaves very differently from one where three of them sit close together.

Share concentrates for reasons having nothing to do with performance. Fee structures, distribution agreements and a converted trust’s starting position shape this table far more than returns do.

The tail is worth a look as well as the top. A long tail of very small funds is a different competitive picture from three or four serious ones.

First place is less informative than the distance to second

League tables invite attention to the top row, and the top row is usually the least surprising thing on them. Whoever launched largest tends to stay largest for a long time.

What changes, and what the table is genuinely good at showing, is the spread. A leader pulling away and a field closing up are different markets for the funds, and both are visible here long before they are discussed anywhere else.

Issuer Concentration: a converted trust makes the starting point unreadable

The early record is dominated by a single starting position. A trust that converted arrived with a very large holding on its first day, so the opening concentration reflects history rather than anything about demand.

The first months of this record are not a competition anyone could have won. One fund began with a very large holding because it already existed, and every share on the chart is measured against that.

Reading the early concentration as a statement about investor preference is therefore a mistake. The informative stretch begins once the newly launched funds have had time to accumulate, and the drift since then is the part worth following.

What it does not tell you

It covers the spot funds only. Every other route to the same exposure sits outside this table entirely, however much is held through them.

Holdings are reported by the funds and updated on their schedules, which are not identical.

Size is not a quality judgement of any kind. The largest fund is not necessarily the cheapest, the best run or the easiest to trade.

It is a snapshot, so nothing about how a fund reached its position appears in the ranking.

How to read it

Highly concentrated. One fund holds a dominant share of the complex.

Concentrated. Holdings are unevenly distributed without a single fund dominating.

Competitive. Several funds hold comparable shares.

Issuer League appears on the ETF dashboard, along with Issuer Concentration, Assets Under Management and Asset Held.

Common questions

Why rank on holdings rather than value?

Because holdings remove price from the comparison entirely. Two funds holding the same coin are equal on this basis regardless of what that coin is worth today.

What does the share column add?

It turns a ranking into a concentration reading. The order says who is largest; the share says by how much, which is the part that changes what the table means.

What drives the distribution?

Fee structures, distribution arrangements and where each fund started, including any that converted from an existing trust. Performance has very little to do with it.

Is the largest fund the best one?

Nothing here says so. Size reflects how much money found its way in, which is a separate question from cost, structure or how well the fund is run.

Does it cover every route to the exposure?

No. It covers the spot funds, and every other way of holding the same exposure sits outside this table completely, however large those routes happen to be.

Why does the start look so lopsided?

Because one fund converted from a trust that already existed and arrived with a very large holding on its first day. The opening concentration reflects that history rather than any preference.

Does it explain why share moves?

No. A fund losing share may be more expensive, less well distributed or simply later to launch, and none of that appears on the chart.