S&P 500 Fundamental vs. Market-Cap Concentration
Market concentration broadly tracks the leading revenue and profit cohorts, but capital spending is a different story.
The ten largest S&P 500 issuers carry 40.45% of normalized market weight. But the central comparison holds the company cohort constant: the ten largest covered revenue contributors generate 26.32% of covered positive revenue and carry 24.97% of market weight, while the ten largest capex contributors generate 50.68% of covered capex and carry only 19.89%.
Revenue and net income are close at the top 10; capex is not
The comparison below uses the exact companies that rank in the top 10 for each fundamental. That is different from comparing every fundamental with the overall market's ten largest companies.
| Fundamental | Coverage | Top-10 fundamental share | Same-cohort market weight | Market minus fundamental |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 468/500 (93.6%) | 26.32% | 24.97% | -1.35 pp |
| Operating income | 384/500 (76.8%) | 39.55% | 36.88% | -2.67 pp |
| Net income | 457/500 (91.4%) | 37.89% | 37.36% | -0.53 pp |
| Operating cash flow | 489/500 (97.8%) | 31.03% | 36.37% | +5.34 pp |
| Free cash flow | 325/500 (65.0%) | 31.32% | 27.24% | -4.08 pp |
| Capital expenditures | 331/500 (66.2%) | 50.68% | 19.89% | -30.79 pp |
Explore the six same-cohort comparisons
Switch between top 10 and top 20 cohorts to see the exact contributors, company-level share gaps, sector gaps, and metric coverage. Overall market top-10 and top-20 weights remain visible for context but are not substituted for the same-cohort denominator.
Same-cohort company detail
10 issuers- #1 AMZNAmazon · Consumer Discretionary4.21% fundamental3.79% market · -0.42 pp
- #2 WMTWalmart · Consumer Staples4.15% fundamental0.72% market · -3.43 pp
- #3 UNHUnitedHealth Group · Health Care2.63% fundamental0.51% market · -2.12 pp
- #4 AAPLApple Inc. · Information Technology2.44% fundamental7.39% market · +4.95 pp
- #5 MCKMcKesson Corporation · Health Care2.37% fundamental0.15% market · -2.22 pp
- #6 GOOG/GOOGLAlphabet Inc. · Communication Services2.37% fundamental5.61% market · +3.24 pp
- #7 CVSCVS Health · Health Care2.36% fundamental0.17% market · -2.19 pp
- #8 XOMExxonMobil · Energy1.95% fundamental0.97% market · -0.98 pp
- #9 MSFTMicrosoft · Information Technology1.95% fundamental5.57% market · +3.62 pp
- #10 CORCencora · Health Care1.89% fundamental0.09% market · -1.80 pp
Largest sector gaps
Absolute gap order- Information Technology13.59% fundamental39.04% market+25.45 pp
- Health Care21.40% fundamental9.16% market-12.24 pp
- Consumer Staples11.64% fundamental4.36% market-7.28 pp
- Consumer Discretionary12.34% fundamental8.77% market-3.57 pp
- Energy6.32% fundamental3.38% market-2.94 pp
- Industrials10.15% fundamental8.07% market-2.08 pp
Coverage changes how much weight to put on each comparison
Revenue, net income, and operating cash flow cover most of the 500-issuer universe. Free cash flow and capex do not. A large gap in a partial pool can be economically interesting without being a full-index statement.
Revenue covers 93.6% of issuers, net income 91.4%, and operating cash flow 97.8%.
Free cash flow covers 65.0% and capital expenditures cover 66.2%. Those gaps describe the covered positive-value pools, not all 500 issuers.
Methodology and interpretation boundaries
Market weights use the September 21, 2026 IVV equity market values for the exact frozen 503 S&P 500 security lines, renormalized to 100% and aggregated to 500 issuer CIKs.
For each fundamental, Grizzly Bulls takes the exact reviewed top 10 or top 20 positive contributors from the Fundamental Concentration Atlas and compares their share of that covered positive-value pool with the market weight carried by those same issuers.
Fundamental coverage remains metric-specific. Revenue and operating cash flow are broad, while free cash flow and capital expenditures cover materially smaller issuer sets.
A positive gap means the same cohort carries more market weight than its share of the covered fundamental pool. A negative gap means it generates more of the covered fundamental than its market weight. Neither direction is a valuation, quality, efficiency, or recommendation judgment.
The market-weight proxy comes from iShares Core S&P 500 ETF holdings ↗. Fundamental cohorts come from the reviewed S&P 500 Fundamental Concentration Atlas. This page uses the frozen reviewed dataset and does not fetch live holdings at page render or rebuild the join.
Download the comparison
Research data
- Download CSVCSVComparison summary CSVSix reviewed metric rows with coverage, top-10/top-20 fundamental shares, same-cohort market weights, and percentage-point gaps.Data snapshot September 21, 2026 · Reuse with attribution to the canonical study.
- Download JSONJSONComparison JSONStructured derived comparison data including market concentration, public company and sector cohorts, selected findings, and methodology boundaries. Raw IVV holdings and internal review metadata are not included.Data snapshot September 21, 2026 · Reuse with attribution to the canonical study.
Related S&P 500 concentration research
Citation and reuse
When citing a same-cohort gap, preserve the metric's coverage denominator and the September 21, 2026 data date. For methodology questions or corrections, contact Grizzly Bulls research.