As at 12 October 2026, two active global equity funds hold very different amounts of the Financials sector, as FE classifies it. Sands Capital Global Growth Fund has 10.2% in it. Artisan Global Value Fund has 36.2%. The average for active global equity funds in our data on that date was 13.5%.
The weights
Against that 13.5% average, Sands Capital Global Growth is 3.3 percentage points below and Artisan Global Value is 22.7 percentage points above. Neither number is good or bad on its own; it describes how much of each portfolio sits in one sector.
| Sands Capital Global Growth | Artisan Global Value | |
|---|---|---|
| Weight in Financials | 10.2% | 36.2% |
| Against the active global equity average (13.5%) | -3.3 points | +22.7 points |
| Three year return (to 30 September 2026) | 42.7% | 64.3% |
| Worst fall over three years | -24.4% | -11.5% |
| Ongoing charge | 0.89% | 0.94% |
Returns and falls are in pounds sterling, one share class per fund.
How the worst fall is measured
The worst fall in the table is the largest peak to trough fall in the fund’s daily price over the same three year window for both funds, from 9 October 2023 to 9 October 2026. Using one window for both funds makes the comparison fair. A different window would give different numbers.
What the table does and does not say
Artisan Global Value returned more over three years and fell less at its worst point in that window. Sands Capital Global Growth returned less and fell further. The table shows outcomes, not their origin, and it should not be read as saying that a higher Financials weight produced either result. It shows two portfolios with different sector profiles and different outcomes over one period.
The ongoing charges are close, 0.89% and 0.94%, so cost does not separate the two funds on this table.
Questions to ask of the table
A sector weight invites some practical questions. Is the weight for the share class and date you care about? How does it compare with the average for the same type of fund on the same date? Does the fund report its holdings often enough for the weight to be current? And what else does the portfolio hold, since a high weight in one sector means a lower weight somewhere else? None of these are answered by one table, but each can be checked on the fund pages linked above. Comparing two funds on one sector is a starting point for a review, not a conclusion about either fund.
How to check it yourself
Open each fund page, check the sector weights against the category, and use the same window when you compare worst falls. If you hold one of them, check which share class you hold, since the numbers above are for the classes shown.
How we calculated these figures
Sector weights come from each fund’s holdings as reported to FE fundinfo and are shown as at the date given. The average is the average for active global equity funds in our data on that date, taken from our weekly sector comparison. Sector labels are as FE classifies them and can differ between data providers.
Returns are FE month-end cumulative returns in pounds sterling, one share class per fund. Where a worst fall is shown, it is measured on daily prices over one window that is the same for every fund compared. Ongoing charges are the latest published figures. We have not adjusted or estimated any figure.
Source: FE fundinfo and daily price series. Holdings and risk data as at the dates stated; returns to 30 September 2026. Past performance is not a reliable guide to future returns. Capital is at risk. This is information, not personal advice.
Past performance is not a guide to future returns. Capital is at risk.
Funds Benchmark provides research and tooling for institutional and private investors. Nothing in this note is investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any specific fund.