What the Lens Can't See: The Unscored Third of ARK's Portfolios
Every published ARK fund is between 62.9% and 68.3% scored. The rest is not one thing. It is three different kinds of blind spot — and only one of them is ours to close.
The question
The ARK Lens reports a weight-averaged Blitz Index score for each published fund, and it is careful to say what that average covers: only holdings we have scored. Private holdings, fund positions and companies outside our coverage are excluded from every aggregate.
That raises an obvious reader's question. If roughly a third of each fund is left out, what is in that third — and could it change the picture?
The full split
We classified every line in the three published funds by its Lens status.
| Fund | Scored | Gate failed (G1) | Gate failed (G2) | Not yet scored | Private / outside coverage | Fund positions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARKK | 68.3% | 5.9% | 10.9% | 8.2% | 6.1% | 0.6% |
| ARKW | 68.1% | — | 14.6% | 7.0% | 9.6% | 0.6% |
| ARKF | 62.9% | — | 18.7% | 7.5% | 10.0% | 1.0% |
Share of fund weight, holdings as of 11/04/2026. Rows sum to 100% within rounding.
The unscored third breaks into three groups that mean very different things.
Blind spot 1: measured and rejected (14–19%)
The largest unscored slice in every fund is not unknown at all. These are holdings we measured against the two gates — G1, real and reordering product customers; G2, a ten-year market ceiling at least ten times current revenue — and that did not pass. Gate failures carry no score by design.
In ARKF this slice is 18.7% of the fund, led by its single largest holding, Block (8.64%). In ARKW it is 14.6%, led by Amazon (4.64%). In ARKK it is 16.8%, split between G2 failures (Block, Amazon, Bitmine, Bullish, BWX Technologies, TSMC, Teradyne, Eli Lilly) and G1 failures in gene editing and air mobility (Beam, Intellia, Archer).
This weight is not missing data. It is a verdict that the ruler does not apply — usually because a mature company's revenue is already so large that a ten-fold market ceiling is out of reach. That is a statement about blitzscaling headroom, not about business quality. The companion piece "Too Big to Blitz?" looks at it in detail.
Blind spot 2: not yet scored (7–8%)
This is the slice that is genuinely ours to close. By weight, the largest unscored listed positions are:
| Holding | Funds & weights | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Space Exploration Techn (SPCX) | ARKK 6.42% · ARKW 3.82% | ARKK's second-largest position |
| Adyen (ADYEN) | ARKF 1.77% | |
| Futu (FUTU) | ARKF 1.47% | |
| Securitize (SECZ) | ARKF 1.23% | |
| Everpure (P) | ARKW 1.17% | |
| Genius Sports (GENI) | ARKF 1.19% · ARKW 0.95% | |
| Netflix (NFLX) | ARKW 1.05% |
SpaceX alone is 6.4% of ARKK — larger than any scored holding except Tesla. It is the single biggest coverage gap in the Lens, and the obvious first priority for scoring.
Blind spot 3: structurally outside coverage (6–10%)
The Lens labels a mixed group as "Private — outside public coverage." In practice it contains four different kinds of position:
- A private AI lab: OpenAI Group PBC Series C — 4.11% of ARKK, 3.75% of ARKW, 4.41% of ARKF. It is held in all three funds, and is larger than most scored holdings in each.
- A private prediction market: Kalshi — about 1.6–1.7% in each fund.
- A bitcoin vehicle: the ARK Bitcoin ETF Holdco — 3.46% of ARKW, 3.83% of ARKF.
- Cash management and residue: a Treasury money-market fund (0.06–0.76%) and Brera Holdings warrants (0.01%).
Only the first is a company BlitzLab already scores elsewhere. OpenAI carries a range score of 51–68 (C–B) on our company index, with lower confidence because the inputs are press-reported. The Lens excludes it because range scores are not point scores.
Does OpenAI change the averages?
We can bound the effect by inserting OpenAI at each end of its published range:
| Fund | Published | With OpenAI at 51 | With OpenAI at 68 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARKK | 59.5 | 59.0 | 60.0 |
| ARKW | 65.3 | 64.6 | 65.4 |
| ARKF | 65.7 | 64.7 | 65.8 |
The swing is at most about one point. For ARKF the low end would take the fund just under the 65 line; the high end barely moves it. The exclusion is a methodological choice, not a hidden distortion — but it is a choice readers should know about.
What this means for reading the Lens
Three practical rules follow:
- Gate failures are information, not gaps. A fund with heavy gate-failed weight owns mature incumbents or pre-revenue bets that the blitz ruler was not built to grade.
- "Not yet scored" is the true uncertainty, and it is concentrated: in ARKK, one name (SpaceX) is 78% of the not-yet-scored weight.
- Private positions are material. At 6–10% of each fund, they outweigh most scored holdings — in ARKW, OpenAI alone (3.75%) is larger than every scored holding except Tesla, Meta, Circle, NVIDIA and Shopify.
The boundary
This is an inventory, not a forecast. We make no assumption about how unscored holdings would score, and the OpenAI sensitivity uses only the range already published on our company index. Coverage changes daily as ARK trades and as we publish new scorecards. Nothing here evaluates ARK's decision to hold any position.
BlitzLab scores businesses against a scholar's standard — not investment advice. No price targets, no buy/sell recommendations. Holdings come from ARK Invest's daily public disclosures; BlitzLab is not affiliated with ARK Invest and this research is not endorsed by them.
Sources
- BlitzLab, ARK Lens fund pages (ARKK, ARKW, ARKF) — https://blitzlab.app/ark/arkk/ · https://blitzlab.app/ark/arkw/ · https://blitzlab.app/ark/arkf/ — holdings as of 11/04/2026 — checked 2026-11-05
- BlitzLab, "ARK Funds Overlap" — https://blitzlab.app/ark/overlap/ — checked 2026-11-05
- BlitzLab, "All Company Scores" (OpenAI range 51–68) — https://blitzlab.app/companies/ — checked 2026-11-05
- BlitzLab, "About BlitzLab" (gate definitions, gate rejections, range scores) — https://blitzlab.app/about/ — checked 2026-11-05