Ranked by composite — the average percentile across four lookbacks. Agreement counts how many of those horizons sit in the top quartile: 4 means an established trend, 1 means a one-month blip. Click any header to sort.
Change over four weeks, not week to week. A weekly rank move has a median of 5 places and a third of names move 10+ places, so the weekly list is mostly churn. Percentile points are the honest unit here.
Things visible on a chart without any ranking — which is usually why you would open one. Each list is independent of the composite score.
A written read of the current screen. Generated from the numbers by fixed rules — no model, no network, no interpretation beyond what the columns show. The same screen always produces the same words, which is what makes it safe to diff. It describes; it does not forecast.
6 of 80 funds sit in the top quartile at all four horizons, and 41 are in the bottom quartile at all four. That is the difference between a broad move and a narrow one: when the first number is large the whole market is trending together, and when it is small the leadership is confined to a few corners.
The top ten is made up of Commodities 3, Developed Markets 3, US Sectors 2, Emerging Markets 1, US Subsectors 1. The bottom ten is Commodities 3, Fixed Income 2, US Sectors 2, US Subsectors 2, Emerging Markets 1. Read across those two lists and you have the trade the market has been paying for.
Over the past month the 90th-percentile fund returned 2.7% against -4.5% for the 10th percentile, a spread of 7.2%. That is a moderately spread field.
This matters more than the ranking itself. When dispersion is low, a high composite mostly reflects which group moved, not which fund did something distinctive.
On a four-week view the leadership is shifting towards Emerging Markets (+17.6 percentile points) and away from US Subsectors (-19.3 points).
Change is the more informative half of this screen. A bucket can sit high on the level and still be rolling over, and four weeks is long enough that the move is not just week-to-week churn.
Reading the composition of the leaders is what turns a ranking into a view of the world. The same spread of percentiles means something different when it is commodities at the top than when it is Treasuries.
That is the shape you would expect if the market is pricing steady growth and contained credit risk — money moving out of the assets that protect you and into the ones that need things to go well.
A wide gap in commodities' favour, alongside weak fixed income, is the pattern associated with reflation or an inflation impulse: real assets bid up while the bonds that would suffer from it are sold.
Several explanations usually fit the same cross-asset move, and this page sees prices only — not positioning, flows or news. Treat these as prompts for your own reading, not as conclusions.
Hypotheses consistent with the pattern — not established causes.
These are four-week changes in composite, so they are large enough to be worth looking at rather than weekly churn.
Everything above describes the current configuration. None of it is a forecast, and it is worth being explicit about why: the ranking behind this page was tested against subsequent returns from one week to five years on this universe, and at no horizon was the relationship statistically reliable. The screen tells you what has been happening and where. What happens next is a different question, and this page does not answer it.
The regime notes are hypotheses consistent with the pattern, not established causes. A cross-asset move usually has more than one plausible explanation, and this page can see prices only.
Descriptive, not predictive. Not investment advice.
A relative-strength screen over 80 exchange-traded funds spanning commodities, fixed income, developed markets, emerging markets, US sectors and US subsectors. It ranks each fund against every other in the universe and shows where the strength and weakness currently sit.
It is an attention-routing tool. Its job is to make it obvious which funds and which groups are moving, so that a chart review starts somewhere sensible rather than with all eighty names.
Eighty funds across six buckets. Buckets are used for display and for the within-group correlation measure; the ranking itself is always computed across the whole universe, so a fund is judged against everything, not just its peers.
Because the universe deliberately spans asset classes, its members are less correlated with each other than a single-sector list would be. That is what gives a relative-strength measure something to separate.
For each lookback window the fund's total return over that window is computed, and then ranked across the universe on the same date. The rank is expressed as a percentile, so every horizon is on the same 0–1 scale and averaging across horizons is meaningful.
Four lookbacks are used: one month (21 trading days), three months (63), six months (126) and twelve months (252).
A fund can reach the same composite two ways: consistently strong across all four horizons, or extremely strong over one window and mediocre elsewhere. Those are different situations and the composite alone cannot tell them apart.
The agreement column separates them. Four out of four is an established trend. One out of four is usually a short-term spike in an otherwise unremarkable fund — the kind of thing that looks like a signal and is not.
The change figure is the composite today minus the composite 21 trading days ago, expressed in percentile points. It is deliberately not a week-on-week change.
A single week's rank move has a median of 5 places, and roughly a third of names move ten or more places in a week. Almost all of that is churn in the underlying measurements rather than a change in what the market is doing, so a weekly risers-and-fallers list is mostly noise. Four weeks filters most of it out while still being timely enough to act on.
These are computed directly from price and volume, without reference to the ranking. They are the things that make a chart worth opening.
The context columns exist so that a review starts informed: whether a fund is moving on its own or because its whole group is moving is usually the first question worth answering about any individual chart.
Daily adjusted closes and volumes, sourced from Yahoo Finance via yfinance, stored in this repository as a single file and updated incrementally: each rebuild requests only the bars it does not already have, normally one row per fund.
Because the history is committed, a rebuild reads local data only and never touches the network. That makes a deployment deterministic and means a build cannot fail because a data provider is slow.
Adjusted prices are revised retroactively when a split or dividend is applied. An append-only store cannot see those revisions, so the history is re-downloaded in full periodically to resynchronise.
The ranking on this page was tested against subsequent returns rather than assumed to work. Forward rank correlation was measured between the score and the return over the following period, at horizons from one week to five years, on this universe from 2004 to 2026.
At no horizon was the relationship statistically reliable. Some long-horizon figures look strong — naive t-statistics of 6 to 8 — but those are an artifact of overlapping windows: a 52-week forward return measured every week reuses 51 of the same 52 weeks, so the effective sample is around 22 observations, not 1,125. Corrected for that, every horizon sits below t = 2.
This is stated on the page because it should change how the screen is used. It describes what has been happening and where. It does not forecast, and any narrative built on it is a description with hypotheses attached, not a prediction.
This screen previously ranked funds by a pairwise tournament: every fund against every other, on the ratio of their prices measured against that ratio's own moving average, with the winner of each pair collecting a point.
That score's ranking was measured against simpler alternatives across 600 weeks and turned out to be a near-perfect copy of a single far simpler quantity — price divided by its own moving average — at a rank correlation of 0.9998. It was also close to trailing four-week return, at 0.894.
In other words the tournament reproduced, at the cost of 3,160 comparisons per rebuild, something that 80 divisions give you directly. The current construction computes the cheap thing openly instead of the expensive thing obscurely, and the multi-horizon percentiles add information the tournament could not express.
Also available as a standalone page.