The shape of the universe
As of 8 October 2026, the tracked universe spans 2,342 companies across eight sectors. By sheer head-count, four sectors carry most of the breadth. Technology leads with 636 names (roughly 27% of the universe), followed by Industrials at 447, Healthcare at 385, and Basic Materials at 334. Together those four account for about 77% of every company we follow. The remaining four — Consumer Cyclical (169), Energy (141), Financials (140), and Communication Services (90) — are comparatively thin on names.
Technology's dominance is the kind you'd expect: the sample reads like a roll-call of mega-caps and chipmakers — Apple, Microsoft, NVIDIA, AMD, Salesforce, Intel. This is the sector investors instinctively over-index on, and the data confirms it is where coverage is deepest.
Breadth is not weight
Here the picture inverts. Ranked by tracked market capitalisation, the order scrambles entirely: Financials sits on top, followed by Energy and then Basic Materials — with Technology only fourth. Consumer Cyclical, despite housing Amazon, Tesla, and Alibaba, reports the smallest aggregate cap of any sector.
Two readings are possible, and I'd flag both. One is that heavyweight balance-sheet sectors — banks, insurers, integrated energy, miners — genuinely concentrate enormous nominal value in relatively few names (Financials covers just 140 companies but tops the cap table on the strength of Berkshire, JPMorgan, Visa, and Mastercard). The other, more cautious reading is that the aggregate cap figures are noisy: the totals are large enough that cross-listings and data quirks are almost certainly inflating them. Treat the cap ranking as directional, not the absolute numbers.
Watch the duplicates
The sample names expose a structural wrinkle worth naming. Several companies appear multiple times under different venues: Alphabet as both GOOGL and GOOG; Tesla as TL0.F and TL0.DE; Obsidian Energy as OBE and OBE.TO; Galantas Gold as GAL.V and GAL.L; Novo Resources as NVO.TO and NVO.AX. These cross-listings pad the raw company count and can double-count value if not de-duplicated. Any sector-weight analysis built on this universe should normalise for them first — the "636 Technology names" figure is a count of listings, not strictly of distinct businesses.
What an investor might watch
- Concentration risk inside breadth. A universe that is 27% Technology by count still leaves you exposed to a handful of mega-caps driving most of that sector's weight.
- The Financials/Energy/Materials heft. If the cap rankings hold up after de-duplication, these three are where the nominal value concentrates — a useful counterweight to a tech-tilted portfolio.
- Thin-but-valuable sectors. Communication Services carries only 90 names yet anchors Alphabet, Meta, Netflix, and Tencent. Small coverage, outsized relevance.
The headline takeaway: breadth and weight point in different directions here. Where you find the most companies is not where the most value sits — and reconciling that gap, cleanly and without double-counting, is the first job of anyone using this universe to build a view.