On this page
ARK Invest, led by Cathie Wood, became one of the most recognizable names in growth investing through its suite of thematic innovation ETFs. The flagship ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK) delivered extraordinary returns during 2020-2021, attracting enormous investor interest and assets, before experiencing a dramatic drawdown that raised questions about the fund’s concentrated, high-conviction approach.
Whether you’re an ARK investor seeking diversification, a former holder looking for alternative innovation exposure, or a growth investor evaluating options for the first time, understanding the full landscape of innovation-focused funds helps you make better allocation decisions. This guide examines the strengths and weaknesses of ARK’s approach and evaluates a range of alternatives that offer different paths to capturing disruptive growth.
Understanding ARK’s Approach and Its Challenges
ARK Invest’s strategy centers on identifying and investing in companies driving disruptive innovation across five major platforms: artificial intelligence, robotics, energy storage, DNA sequencing, and blockchain technology. The firm’s approach is distinctively concentrated, high-conviction, and forward-looking, with portfolio construction based on five-year price targets derived from proprietary research models.
The ARK suite includes several focused funds: ARKK (broad innovation), ARKG (genomics), ARKQ (autonomous technology and robotics), ARKF (fintech), and ARKW (next-generation internet). Each charges a 0.75% expense ratio, positioning them at the higher end of the ETF fee spectrum but below many traditional actively managed mutual funds.
The challenges that ARK has faced illuminate important lessons for innovation investors. The extreme concentration in high-growth, unprofitable companies amplified both the upside during the growth stock boom and the downside during the subsequent correction. Research showing that only about 11% of de-SPAC and highly speculative growth stocks traded above their offering prices since 2019 underscores the risk of concentrating in early-stage, unproven business models.
Asset growth itself became a problem. As billions of dollars flowed into ARK funds during the performance peak, the funds were forced to take increasingly large positions in relatively illiquid mid and small cap stocks. When sentiment reversed and redemptions accelerated, the forced selling of these illiquid positions exacerbated price declines in a self-reinforcing cycle.
Categories of ARK Alternatives
Alternatives to ARK’s approach fall into several distinct categories, each offering a different balance of innovation exposure, diversification, cost, and risk management.
Broad Technology ETFs
For investors who want innovation exposure with greater diversification and lower fees, broad technology ETFs provide a more conservative approach that still captures the growth of the technology sector.
Vanguard Information Technology ETF (VGT) offers exposure to the full spectrum of U.S. technology companies, from mega caps to smaller innovators, at just 0.10% in annual fees. VGT includes approximately 320 holdings across semiconductors, software, hardware, and IT services, providing diversification far beyond what concentrated innovation funds offer. While VGT won’t capture the most speculative early-stage innovation plays, its broad approach means it benefits from whichever technology companies ultimately win, without requiring you to bet on specific outcomes.
The Invesco QQQ Trust provides Nasdaq-100 exposure that significantly overlaps with innovation themes while maintaining a portfolio of the 100 largest non-financial Nasdaq-listed companies. As discussed in our VUG vs QQQ comparison, QQQ’s composition naturally tilts toward growth and innovation, but its mega cap focus and exchange-based construction create a very different risk profile than ARKK’s concentrated small and mid cap innovation bets.
Actively Managed Innovation ETFs
Several actively managed ETFs compete directly with ARK by targeting disruptive innovation through stock selection, offering investors different management philosophies and portfolio construction approaches.
The Virtus Terravia Global Tech ETF (GTEK) takes a global approach to innovation investing, seeking opportunities across both developed and emerging markets. Its international perspective provides exposure to innovation happening outside the U.S. that domestic-focused funds like ARKK miss. Historical performance has shown lower drawdowns compared to ARKK during correction periods, suggesting a more risk-conscious approach to innovation investing.
The Innovator Loup Frontier Tech ETF (LOUP) targets companies involved in emerging technologies including AI, robotics, virtual reality, and autonomous vehicles across both developed and emerging markets. Its focus on frontier technologies provides thematic exposure similar to ARK’s but through a different selection methodology and portfolio construction process.
Factor-Based Growth Alternatives
Rather than selecting individual innovation companies, factor-based ETFs use quantitative rules to identify stocks with growth and innovation characteristics. These approaches offer more systematic, transparent, and lower-cost exposure to growth factors without the concentration risk of actively managed funds.
Momentum ETFs like the Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF (SPMO) or the iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) systematically own the stocks with the strongest recent price performance. During innovation-driven bull markets, momentum strategies naturally increase their exposure to the best-performing innovation stocks without requiring thematic judgment calls. During corrections, the systematic rebalancing reduces exposure to falling innovation stocks, providing a built-in risk management mechanism that concentrated innovation funds lack.
Growth factor ETFs that screen for high revenue growth, expanding margins, and strong earnings momentum capture many of the same companies that innovation-focused funds target, but through fundamentally driven selection criteria rather than thematic classification.
Passive Thematic Innovation ETFs
Passively managed thematic ETFs provide innovation exposure through rules-based index methodologies at lower costs than actively managed alternatives. These funds sacrifice the potential for active stock selection alpha but gain transparency, cost efficiency, and systematic construction.
The Global X Robotics & Artificial Intelligence ETF (BOTZ) tracks companies involved in robotics and AI development. The iShares Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Multisector ETF (IRBO) provides broader AI exposure across multiple sectors. These passive approaches ensure you capture the theme’s performance without relying on any single manager’s judgment.
Comparing Key Metrics Across Alternatives
When evaluating alternatives to ARK, several key metrics help you compare options on a level playing field.
Expense ratios range dramatically across the innovation fund landscape. ARK’s 0.75% sits at the higher end, while passive broad technology ETFs like VGT charge just 0.10% and even many thematic ETFs fall in the 0.40% to 0.60% range. Over a 20-year holding period, the fee difference between a 0.75% fund and a 0.10% fund on a $100,000 investment growing at 10% annually exceeds $50,000. This cost drag means ARK and similar high-fee innovation funds must significantly outperform lower-cost alternatives just to deliver equivalent net returns.
Portfolio concentration varies widely. ARK funds typically hold 30 to 50 positions with significant concentration in their top holdings. Broad technology ETFs may hold 100 to 300 positions, providing much greater diversification. Thematic ETFs fall in between, with most holding 40 to 80 companies. Your preference should reflect your risk tolerance and your conviction that concentrated bets will be rewarded.
Market capitalization exposure differs meaningfully. ARK funds tend to overweight small and mid cap companies relative to the benchmark, reflecting their focus on emerging innovators. Broad technology ETFs like VGT and QQQ are dominated by mega caps. This capitalization difference is a major performance driver, as small and mid cap stocks exhibit higher volatility and different return patterns than mega caps.
Liquidity characteristics vary based on fund size and the liquidity of underlying holdings. Large, established ETFs like QQQ and VGT offer exceptional trading liquidity. Smaller thematic funds may have wider bid-ask spreads and lower daily volume, increasing implicit trading costs. For funds investing in illiquid small caps, the premium or discount to NAV can fluctuate more widely during volatile markets.
Building an Innovation Portfolio Without ARK
Rather than replicating ARK’s approach through a single concentrated fund, you can construct a diversified innovation portfolio using multiple building blocks that collectively capture innovation exposure while managing risk more effectively.
A sample innovation allocation might combine a broad technology core position (50% in VGT or QQQ) with thematic satellite positions (15% in an AI ETF, 15% in a clean energy ETF, and 10% each in cybersecurity and genomics ETFs). This multi-fund approach provides exposure across major innovation themes while avoiding the extreme concentration that a single fund like ARKK creates.
The Vanguard growth fund family offers additional building blocks. VUG provides broad growth exposure that includes many innovation leaders, while sector-specific Vanguard ETFs allow you to tilt toward technology, healthcare, or other innovation-heavy sectors at minimal cost.
For investors who want some actively managed innovation exposure, allocating a smaller percentage (10% to 20% of the innovation portfolio) to an actively managed fund while maintaining the majority in passive positions creates a balanced approach. This structure limits the damage if the active manager underperforms while preserving the possibility of benefiting from superior stock selection.
Risk Management Considerations
Innovation investing inherently carries higher risk than broad market investing, regardless of which vehicles you use. Several risk management practices help you capture innovation upside while protecting your portfolio from devastating drawdowns.
Position sizing discipline prevents any single innovation fund from dominating your portfolio. Limiting your total innovation allocation to 20% to 30% of your equity portfolio ensures that even a severe drawdown in innovation stocks won’t permanently impair your wealth. Within that allocation, diversifying across multiple funds and themes further reduces concentration risk.
Rebalancing enforces buy-low, sell-high discipline in the volatile innovation space. When innovation funds surge, rebalancing trims positions back to target weights, locking in gains. When they decline, rebalancing adds to positions at lower prices, potentially improving long-term returns. Quarterly or threshold-based rebalancing provides a systematic framework for managing positions through innovation market cycles.
Valuation awareness prevents you from overpaying for innovation exposure during periods of peak enthusiasm. When innovation ETFs trade at historically elevated price-to-sales or price-to-earnings multiples relative to their own history and the broader market, moderating your allocation protects against the valuation compression that has historically followed periods of excessive optimism. Maintaining a diversified sector allocation provides natural hedges against innovation-specific drawdowns.
Correlation monitoring reveals whether your innovation positions are providing genuine diversification or merely duplicating the same underlying exposures. Regularly checking the overlap between your innovation funds and your core growth holdings prevents unintended concentration that could amplify drawdowns during broad technology sell-offs.
The Evolution of Innovation Investing
The innovation fund landscape continues to evolve rapidly, driven by competitive dynamics, technological change, and investor demand for more nuanced exposure to growth themes.
Actively managed ETFs with innovation mandates are proliferating as fund companies launch alternatives to ARK. These new entrants often position themselves as offering similar thematic exposure with better risk management, lower fees, or more rigorous research processes. The increased competition benefits investors by providing more choices and putting downward pressure on fees.
Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used in the fund management process itself. Funds that use machine learning algorithms to identify innovation patterns, analyze patent filings, and process alternative data sources represent a new generation of innovation investing that combines thematic focus with quantitative rigor.
The convergence of themes is creating new opportunities. Funds targeting the intersection of AI and healthcare, or clean energy and autonomous vehicles, reflect the reality that the most transformative innovation often happens at the boundaries between established themes. These intersection-focused funds may capture opportunities that single-theme funds miss.
Conclusion: Innovation Exposure on Your Terms
ARK Invest pioneered the concept of accessible, thematic innovation investing and deserves credit for bringing disruptive innovation to mainstream investor portfolios. However, the ARK approach, with its high fees, extreme concentration, and dramatic volatility, is not the only way to invest in innovation, and for many investors it may not be the best way.
The alternatives available today range from ultra-low-cost broad technology exposure through VGT and QQQ, to diversified thematic ETFs targeting specific innovation themes, to factor-based approaches that systematically capture growth and momentum characteristics. By combining multiple approaches into a diversified innovation portfolio, you can capture the growth potential of disruptive innovation while managing the risks that concentrated single-fund approaches inevitably carry.
The best innovation portfolio is one that aligns with your risk tolerance, time horizon, and conviction level while providing enough diversification to survive the inevitable periods when innovation stocks correct sharply. Whether you achieve that alignment through a single fund or a carefully constructed multi-fund portfolio, the key is maintaining the discipline to hold through volatility and the patience to let transformative innovation trends play out over the multi-year timeframes they require.
For the complete framework this fits into, start with my guide to the best growth ETFs.
