Manager overlap

Manager overlap measures how similarly two hedge-like filers' reported books are positioned, based on shared holdings drawn from their 13F filings. For a selected fund, the score compares its holdings against every other hedge-like filer and ranks them by similarity. The output is a 0-100 scale, but it isn't an absolute measure calibrated the same way across every fund on the tab. It's rebased per selected fund: that fund's single closest-matching peer always scores exactly 100, and every other ranked result is scaled down proportionally from that top match.

Because the score is relative to each fund's own top match, a 100 for one selected fund and a 100 for a different selected fund aren't directly comparable measures of overlap intensity; each just marks that fund's own single best match. What is comparable within a single fund's result list is the relative ordering: a peer scoring 85 for a given fund is positioned meaningfully more similarly to that fund than one scoring 40, even though neither number stands alone as an absolute overlap percentage. Read the score as a ranked list of who looks most like the selected fund, not as a fixed similarity threshold that means the same thing fund to fund.

Manager overlap is built entirely from disclosed long equity positions, the same 13F blind spot every derived metric on this tab inherits: no short positions, no options, no leverage, and a data lag of several weeks from each filing's 45-day deadline. A high overlap score also doesn't imply the two funds are coordinating or share any relationship beyond holding similar stocks; it's purely a statistical similarity read on two independently filed books. And because the top score is always rebased to 100 for the selected fund, the score says nothing about how strong that top match actually is in absolute terms. A fund whose single best match is only mildly similar still shows a 100 at the top of its own list.

A reader selects Fund A and pulls up its overlap ranking. Fund B, its closest-positioned peer, scores 100. Fund C, whose book shares meaningfully fewer of Fund A's positions, scores 62, a real but weaker match. Fund D barely resembles Fund A's book at all and scores 8, near the bottom of the ranked list. If the reader instead selects Fund C as the starting fund, Fund C's own closest match, which might be an entirely different fund than Fund A, becomes the new 100, and Fund A's score in that reversed comparison won't necessarily be 62 again, since the rebasing runs relative to whichever fund is currently selected.