QW Research
StatusAboutFAQInsightsAPI
HomeAboutFAQ
Request data / API access →

Data sourced from SEC EDGAR 13F filings. Updated quarterly.

Disclaimer: QW Research is provided for informational and educational purposes only and is not investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security. Data is derived from public SEC 13F filings and may be incomplete, delayed, or inaccurate. Do not make investment decisions based on this content. QW Research does not share in any profits and accepts no liability for any losses or decisions made using this information. Past performance does not predict future results.

QW Research © 2026

Institutional Filer Screener

Rank every 13F filer by skill. Funds are sorted by their historical Fama-French skill alpha — a backward-looking, risk-adjusted excess return, measured over each fund's own past, that isn't explained by market, size, value or momentum tilts — limited to those with at least 2 years of measured history. The raw “vs S&P” figure is shown alongside for context. Toggle the gate off to include newer funds, or re-sort by AUM, consistency, or name.

A caveat, in the spirit of our research: these figures are historical and in-sample. Across all 9,244 measured funds, significant underperformers outnumber outperformers nearly 9-to-1, and high past alpha rarely repeats out of sample — so read this as a descriptive lens, not a buy signal. See why fund skill doesn't persist.

“Skilled” vs “unskilled” funds, by length of track record

9,244 funds with a Fama-French skill-alpha regression (p<0.05), grouped by how many quarters went into the fit. Each bar counts funds; the dashed tick is how many “winners” pure chance alone would produce.

significantly unskilled significantly skilled expected by chance
qtrslosers← unskilled · skilled →winners
8–1132
12
12–1554
11
16–19105
8
20–27267
15
28–39214
26
40+214
31

At every track-record length the red (significantly bad) dwarfs the green (significantly good) — 886 losers vs 103 winners in all. And every green bar falls short of the dashed chance tick: fewer funds look skilled than pure luck would produce, and more history only widens the gap. That's why the ranking below is a descriptive lens, not a buy signal.

Loading filers...