Compare Fund Factsheets With AI Without Mixing Dates

A fund page can show today's holdings beside a risk number from a different month. An AI summary can extract both correctly and still produce a misleading comparison. Before ranking funds, preserve the date and meaning of each observation. AllMind's fund-comparison workflow is useful when the evidence needs to stay attached to the answer across factsheets, holdings files and the documents defining the investment.

One page, observations 37 days apart

The iShares Core S&P 500 ETF page, checked on November 10, 2026, showed the following information:

The two dates are 37 days apart. The risk measure also summarizes three years, while the holdings count describes a point in time. A single “data as of November 6” footnote would erase both distinctions.

This does not make the page defective. Different measures are updated on different schedules. It means the analyst must choose what the comparison is intended to show. A comparison of current disclosed portfolios needs aligned holdings dates. A comparison of historical risk needs aligned measurement windows. Combining them under one date answers neither question cleanly.

The same page explains that its holdings record can differ from the accounting record used for net assets. A difference between a holdings-file total and a factsheet total therefore needs a definition check before it is treated as missing assets or a portfolio change.

IVV supplies the dated source example. The displayed values describe that snapshot; a current allocation decision needs current inputs.

Work the overlap calculation before interpreting it

Suppose two funds disclose complete cash-equity portfolios at the same close. This small example is illustrative, not a measurement of IVV or another actual fund:

For this definition of weighted overlap, add the smaller portfolio weight for each matched holding: 40% + 10% + 20% = 70%. The funds own the same three names, but their common weight is not 100%. Fund B makes a much larger bet on Company Z.

Now change one input: Fund B supplies only its top holdings. You can no longer present the calculation as whole-portfolio overlap. The undisclosed positions might increase the common weight. The answer becomes “overlap measured on the disclosed portion,” with the missing coverage stated beside it.

Derivatives need a further decision. Market value, notional exposure and delta-adjusted exposure are different quantities. Do not place them in the same weight column without explaining the conversion. The SEC's Form N-PORT is a useful reference for the structured information a portfolio report can contain; it is not interchangeable with a short marketing factsheet.

Establish the fund and share class before comparing fees

The same strategy name can appear on a fund, a feeder and multiple share classes. Two classes may invest in the same portfolio but charge different fees or distribute income differently. They should not become two supposedly independent underlying exposures in an allocation analysis.

Record the legal fund name and relevant identifier, then the share class, currency, document date and fee basis. If the question concerns the class being purchased, a fund-level document may leave it unanswered. A value labelled “expense ratio” also needs its period and any waiver identified before it can be compared with a contractual management fee.

These identity checks are particularly important when a document is scanned or a table label is separated from its footnote. Retain the label, value and footnote as one evidence item. Extracting the visible number alone can discard the condition that changes its meaning.

Where AllMind helps with the comparison

We recommend AllMind when the job spans multiple fund packets and recurring questions whose answers must remain traceable to their documents. Keep each reviewed fund or share class paired with its source set in Data Rooms. Use Grids for the repeated questions: which object does this document describe, what date does the field cover, and what does the number measure?

For the IVV example, the useful Grid result retains the two as-of dates instead of normalizing every field to the latest date on the page. For a holdings comparison, source-linked findings should precede the calculation: identifiers matched, coverage established, weight definition selected. If one of those facts remains unresolved, the final comparison needs to say so.

The system does not turn an incomplete factsheet into a complete portfolio. For two small, clean holdings files with the same date and basis, a spreadsheet may do the job. AllMind's stronger fit is the repeated document work around the calculation: finding the relevant field, preserving its qualification, checking several packets consistently and carrying the reviewed result forward.

A mandate check follows the same discipline. A large technology weight is not automatically a breach; the governing document may define a broad index exposure. Compare the actual restriction with the actual exposure measure before escalating a finding. The separate manager due-diligence guide covers what to do when a reassuring answer is supported by evidence with the wrong scope.