Tesla at 11.3%: ARK's Largest Position Is Back to B
Tesla is the largest holding in ARKK (11.30%) and ARKW (8.93%). After its third-quarter results it was rescored from a C to 62/B — six points, and enough on its own to move ARKK's weight-averaged score by about one point. Here is what moved the score, what did not, and why it still sits three points below the line.
Why one company matters this much to the Lens
| ARKK | ARKW | |
|---|---|---|
| Tesla's weight | 11.30% (#1) | 8.93% (#1) |
| Tesla's share of the fund's scored weight | 16.5% | 13.1% |
| Effect of a 6-point rescore on the fund average* | ≈ +1.0 | ≈ +0.8 |
*Arithmetic only: 6 points × Tesla's share of scored weight, holding every other score and weight fixed.
No other scored holding comes close to this leverage on the Lens. In ARKK, Tesla's weight is nearly as large as NVIDIA, Meta, Shopify, Palantir and Alphabet — the fund's entire 65+ Club — combined (11.7%).
The scorecard after Q3
| Section | Score | What the scorecard cites |
|---|---|---|
| A · Speed | 15 / 25 | Trailing revenue above $100B for two straight quarters; Q3 deliveries 486,532, flat year on year |
| B · Moat | 38 / 60 | 1.74M paid FSD subscribers (+67% YoY), 75%+ North American attach; ex-credit auto margin 16.3% → 18.1% |
| C · Creative destruction | 12 / 15 | Unsupervised robotaxi in six cities, Dallas the seventh in November; Cybercab in production |
| D · BlitzFailing | −3 | The $1T pay package opens a path to roughly 37% voting power for the founder |
| Total | 62 / B | Three points below the 65 line |
The scorecard is specific about the swing. The ex-credit automotive gross margin recovering from 16.3% to 18.1% was worth two points on its own, and free cash flow turned from −$1.09B to +$1.53B. Together with the subscription and robotaxi evidence, that took Tesla from C back to B.
What did not move
The scorecard is equally clear about what the rescore does not show:
- Operating profit fell 56% year on year to $718M. Operating expenses rose 39%; the recovery so far is in gross margin, not in operating leverage.
- Energy revenue fell 16% to $2.88B, even as deployments rose 10% — price and mix pressure in what had been the fastest-growing segment.
- The recovery's structure is unverified. Whether the margin gain reflects structural cost improvement or an unwinding of inventory discounts is, in the scorecard's words, the test for Q4.
Why "between blitzes" scores as it does
Tesla's scorecard describes a company between blitzes. The first — popularizing electric vehicles, 2012 to 2021 — is over: deliveries declined two years running and the BEV crown passed to BYD (press-reported share data). The second — robotaxi, FSD, energy storage — is visible in operations but not yet in revenue; management expects robotaxi revenue recognition in the second half of 2027.
The frozen v1.0 model scores the company as one business. Speed and moat are pulled down by the mature auto core; creative destruction reflects a robotaxi business that does not yet book revenue. The scorecard names this as a structural limitation and records a candidate fix for a future version: a re-blitz track for mature companies starting a second curve. Until then, a company in this state scores in the low 60s at best.
The long trajectory frames it. Tesla's blind scores run 62/B at the end of 2017, 67/B at the February 2021 peak, 61/B at the end of 2022, then a C before this rescore — and 62/B now. A decade-long slope, not a collapse.
Both gates pass — one on an estimate
G1 passes because second curves are materializing (energy storage, FSD, robotaxi) despite two years of delivery declines. G2 passes as an estimate: the ten-fold bar is roughly $950B, which autos alone do not reach and which robotaxi and Optimus together clear. That makes Tesla's place on the ruler conditional on businesses that are still pre-revenue.
The price is outside the score
The scorecard records, as a valuation note not reflected in the score, one press-reported estimate that about 74% of Tesla's roughly $1.4T market capitalization is option value on businesses without commercial revenue. That is the gap ARK's position sits across: a 62/B business and a market price that assumes the second blitz succeeds. The Blitz Index grades the first and does not measure the second — by design, after our ARK backtest showed that the business call and the price call are different questions.
What to watch
The scorecard names six quarterly metrics, split into "firewall" and "blitz" measures: ex-credit auto gross margin, quarterly capex against free cash flow, and the cash balance on one side; energy storage revenue and GWh, FSD subscribers, and robotaxi city count on the other. Tesla's Q4 2026 report is expected in late January 2027 (date not yet announced). If the blitz metrics turn into revenue first, the scorecard's direction moves from "watch" toward "rising"; if the firewall metrics weaken faster, the between-blitzes state starts to look like a failed one.
The boundary
This is a case file on one scorecard, read through one lens. The fund-average effect is arithmetic on today's weights, not a description of how ARK manages its position. Nothing here is a view on Tesla's stock.
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. Company figures are as labeled on the scorecard (confirmed or press-reported).
Sources
- BlitzLab, "Tesla — Blitz Index 62 (B)" — https://blitzlab.app/companies/tesla/ — Oct 2026 scorecard, Q3 2026 rescore — checked 2026-11-05
- BlitzLab, ARK Lens (ARKK, ARKW) — https://blitzlab.app/ark/arkk/ · https://blitzlab.app/ark/arkw/ — holdings as of 11/04/2026 — checked 2026-11-05
- BlitzLab, "Can Our Model Tell ARK's Winners from Its Blowups?" — https://blitzlab.app/research/ark-backtest — 2026-10-15 — checked 2026-11-05