Invesco S&P MidCap 400 GARP ETF (GRPM) holdings & weights
Per-holding contribution · concentration · sector skew — a deep read
Fund overview
This is a US-listed ETF from Invesco. It tracks the S&P MidCap 400 GARP Index. Key facts — expense ratio 0.35%; net assets about $518M; inception Dec 8, 2010. Its 1-year return is +21.69%.
Fund details
Fund overview
This is a US-listed ETF from Invesco. It tracks the S&P MidCap 400 GARP Index. Key facts — expense ratio 0.35%; net assets about $518M; inception Dec 8, 2010. Its 1-year return is +21.69%.
25 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 56.57%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
Weight and calculation basis
25 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 56.57%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
Today's summary
On a constituent basis, Invesco S&P MidCap 400 GARP ETF's theoretical return is +0.20%p. Today's biggest hero is Abercrombie & Fitch, contributing +0.20%p (return +5.71%). The biggest suspect dragging it down is AppFolio, at -0.00%p.
Its top 10 holdings make up about 47.8% of the fund. The concentration index (HHI) is 417 — Low — evenly diversified, and the largest sector is Health Care (24%). The higher the concentration, the more one stock or sector drives the whole ETF's return.
Structural health
A five-axis read on how this fund is built. It is not a return forecast or a recommendation, and a low score does not mean a bad fund — leveraged products score low by design. Each axis shows the figure behind it.
Concentration is below 1,500 (417), so no single holding dominates.
The largest sector is Health Care at 24% — industries are reasonably spread.
0.35% a year is typical. Held ten years, roughly 3.5% goes to fees.
Net assets of $518M — liquid enough to trade, and unlikely to be wound down.
A plain 1x physical fund holding the shares themselves — no structural drift from how long you hold it.
Concentration and diversification
Structural health
A five-axis read on how this fund is built. It is not a return forecast or a recommendation, and a low score does not mean a bad fund — leveraged products score low by design. Each axis shows the figure behind it.
Concentration is below 1,500 (417), so no single holding dominates.
The largest sector is Health Care at 24% — industries are reasonably spread.
0.35% a year is typical. Held ten years, roughly 3.5% goes to fees.
Net assets of $518M — liquid enough to trade, and unlikely to be wound down.
A plain 1x physical fund holding the shares themselves — no structural drift from how long you hold it.
Top 20 holdings
Weights are normalized to 100% of absolute exposures across analysed positions, including positions outside this top list. Cash, collateral and unverified assets are excluded. Contributions retain original signed NAV exposures; leverage is not applied twice.
Normalized to 100% of analysed positions
Weights are normalized to 100% of absolute exposures across analysed positions, including positions outside this top list. Cash, collateral and unverified assets are excluded. Contributions retain original signed NAV exposures; leverage is not applied twice.
| # | Holding | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Abercrombie & FitchANF | 6.28% |
| 2 | Halozyme TherapeuticsHALO | 5.76% |
| 3 | DuolingoDUOL | 4.90% |
| 4 | InterDigitalIDCC | 4.70% |
| 5 | PaylocityPCTY | 4.58% |
| 6 | RenaissanceReRNR | 4.51% |
| 7 | AppFolioAPPF | 4.42% |
| 8 | SharkNinjaSN | 4.22% |
| 9 | Kinsale CapitalKNSL | 4.23% |
| 10 | MedpaceMEDP | 4.17% |
| 11 | DocuSignDOCU | 4.01% |
| 12 | Hecla MiningHL | 3.96% |
| 13 | Tenet HealthcareTHC | 3.87% |
| 14 | ExelixisEXEL | 3.84% |
| 15 | DoximityDOCS | 3.80% |
| 16 | QualysQLYS | 3.71% |
| 17 | TechnipFMCFTI | 3.68% |
| 18 | LantheusLNTH | 3.55% |
| 19 | Manhattan AssociatesMANH | 3.41% |
| 20 | Globus MedicalGMED | 3.25% |
Holdings below 0.5% or outside the top list are folded into “Others” and omitted above.
Where the weight sits — sector mix
Listed equity weights summed by sector and normalized to 100%. Each band is one sector's share.
Industry breakdown
HHI sums the squared weights. The more it leans on a few names, the higher it goes — and the more the whole ETF moves with them.
How concentrated is it
Concentration (HHI) is low at 417, with the top 10 holdings at just 47.8% of equity weight. No single name can dominate the fund.
Good for damping single-stock risk — and equally, a big winner inside gets diluted.
HHI squares each weight and sums them: 10,000 means one stock is everything, and the more evenly spread the holdings, the closer it falls to zero.
Where the sector weight sits
Sectors run Health Care(24%) · Information Technology(24%) · Consumer Discretionary(20%), and even the largest is only 24% — no meaningful industry tilt.
This is built to track a market rather than to call a sector.
Weights above sum the individually listed equities and normalize that equity total to 100%.
How much it overlaps others
Even its closest peer, XMHQ, overlaps only 31% (9 shared names).
Funds filed under the same label can hold quite different companies, so pairing this one with another may genuinely spread risk.
What it is made of
The fund holds 62 positions in total; this page lists the largest 25 and folds the rest into "Others".
Equities are 56.6% of the fund, the rest swaps and cash — index exposure built synthetically rather than by owning the shares, which adds counterparty risk.
The expense ratio is 0.35% a year. Funds tracking the same index tend to perform alike, which makes the fee one of the few things that reliably separates them over time.
This page is not investment advice. Investment decisions and responsibility are your own.
GRPM comments
Leave a one-line take on Invesco S&P MidCap 400 GARP ETF. No account — just a nickname and a code to delete it later.
Loading…
Similar ETFs
Picked by how much their actual holdings overlap. The higher the overlap, the less diversification you get from owning both.