The shape of what we track
As of 15 October 2026, the tracked universe spans 2,364 companies across eight sectors. The distribution is lopsided in a familiar way: Technology leads with 644 names (roughly 27% of the universe), followed by Industrials at 452, Healthcare at 388, and Basic Materials at 336. Those four sectors alone account for about 77% of everything we follow. The remaining four — Consumer Cyclical (171), Energy (141), Financials (140), and Communication Services (92) — form a much thinner tail.
By headcount, this looks like a growth-and-industrials universe. Technology's roster is anchored by the usual megacaps — Apple, Microsoft, NVIDIA — alongside AMD, Salesforce, and Intel. Industrials reaches well beyond the US, mixing Honeywell and nVent with Chinese and Taiwanese listings and newer-economy names like Archer Aviation.
When count and capitalization disagree
Here the data gets interesting. If you rank sectors not by name count but by the reported totalMarketCapM figures, the ordering inverts almost completely. Financials and Energy post the two largest totals, Basic Materials sits third, and Technology — the clear leader by headcount — lands only fourth. Consumer Cyclical, home to Amazon and Tesla, reports the smallest total of all eight sectors.
That ordering should not be taken at face value. A universe where Basic Materials outweighs Technology, and where Amazon-and-Tesla's sector trails every other, is almost certainly an artifact rather than a market truth. The most likely culprits are visible right in the sample names: cross-listings and currency mismatches. Novo Resources appears as both NVO.TO and NVO.AX; Galantas Gold as GAL.V and GAL.L; Tesla as both TL0.F and TL0.DE; Alphabet as GOOGL and GOOG; Obsidian Energy as OBE and OBE.TO. Each duplicate can inflate a sector's count and, if caps are summed across listings or across currencies, distort the totals badly.
What an investor might watch
Three things stand out. First, concentration: with Technology supplying more than a quarter of all names, the universe's breadth is skewed toward one sector — diversification by count is not diversification by exposure. Second, geographic spread: Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, and London tickers appear across nearly every sector, so single-market assumptions won't hold. Third, and most actionable, data hygiene: the market-cap anomalies suggest cross-listing deduplication and currency normalization are the first things to verify before any cap-weighted analysis.
The headline takeaway is deliberately modest. We can say with confidence which sectors carry the most names, and that the universe leans tech-heavy and global. The capitalization picture, by contrast, is a reminder that in a multi-exchange tracker the plumbing matters as much as the prices — clean the listings before you trust the totals.