Skip to main content

Methodology

Comparable intelligence starts with comparable evidence.

Fundsqore applies a structured methodology to construct relevant peer sets, validate fund information and connect every comparison to its supporting evidence.

Methodological principles

Relevant, traceable and explicit about limitations.

Fundsqore connects every comparison to verified fund-level evidence across performance, structure, liquidity, governance and regulatory context.

The methodology is designed to make peer context explainable.

Relevant peer construction
The comparison starts with the funds and managers relevant to the question. Peer sets can reflect market, strategy, structure, geography, scale and other decision-specific characteristics.
Canonical fund identity
Fund and manager records are reconciled to avoid duplicate, superseded or incorrectly matched profiles entering the comparison.
Comparable definitions
Metrics are presented with consistent definitions, reporting periods, currency context and basis information wherever the evidence supports comparison.
Source-backed evidence
Fund information is linked to its source, reporting date and evidence context so users can investigate the basis of an observed difference.
Transparent limitations
Missing, stale, non-comparable or provisional information is not silently converted into certainty. Limitations remain visible in the analysis.
Privacy by design
Private participant submissions are not exposed to other clients. Eligible contributions may support anonymised aggregate analysis without identifying the fund, manager or participant.

The process

From the question to the report.

01
Define the question
Identify the fund, manager or market decision that the comparison needs to support.
02
Construct the peer set
Select the relevant cohort rather than defaulting to one broad market average.
03
Validate and normalise
Reconcile identity, periods, definitions, currency context, source quality and known limitations.
04
Compare and explain
Show the relative position and connect meaningful differences to the underlying evidence.
05
Review and document
Save the selected analysis and produce a Peer Intelligence Report for institutional review.

Evidence domains

Fund Intelligence explains the difference.

Liquidity, governance and regulation are supporting analytical domains. They are used when they help explain a fund or manager's relative position.

Performance and scale
Reported outcomes, fund size and relevant period context.
Structure and terms
Fund structure, strategy, dealing terms and other comparable characteristics.
Liquidity
Terms, available evidence and liquidity headroom where relevant to the comparison.
Governance
Governance evidence that helps explain differences between funds or managers.
Regulatory context
Applicable regulatory and supervisory context without presenting a compliance certification.
Provenance
The sources, reporting dates and evidence trail behind the information shown.

Participant privacy

Private inputs remain private.

Private participant submissions are not displayed to other clients. Where eligible information contributes to aggregate analysis, only anonymised outputs are shown.

Public and licensed source information can remain visible at fund level. Confidential participant submissions are subject to separate access and aggregation controls.

Full data handling terms are set out in the Privacy Policy.

See the methodology applied

Explore a relevant peer comparison.

See how the peer set is constructed, how differences are explained and how the resulting analysis is documented.

Request a demo