74
META
META PLATFORMS INC · Information Technology
Consensus score 74/100 · #8 this quarter · tier-weighted across tracked managers
↑ConfirmedPrice action since filingas of 2026-10-14
vs 50-day avg
+13.7%
21-day momentum
+10.0%
recent volume
0.78×
13F filings lag ~45 days; this is current price/volume action on top — a technical read, not a prediction.
S2· AdvancingStage Analysis · Weinstein
vs 30-wk avg
+17.6%
30-wk MA slope
+1.4%
rel. strength
-21.4
52-wk range
84%
Advancing — above a rising 30-week trend with positive relative strength. Weinstein’s buy zone. Based on the 30-week (150-day) moving average + slope, Mansfield relative strength vs SPY, and volume. Technical read, not advice.
Holders
18
tracked managers
New this Q
1
opened a position
Avg weight
4.8%
of their portfolios
Combined value
$8.31B
held, at quarter-end
Who’s holding it Q2 2026, by position size
| Manager | Position size | Value | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hound Partners Concentrated | 11.8% | $102M | NEW |
| Pershing Square Activist | 9.2% | $1.80B | ADD |
| ValueAct Capital Concentrated | 9.2% | $516M | HOLD |
| Wedgewood Partners Quality growth | 8.9% | $43M | ADD |
| Dorsey Asset Management Concentrated | 7.2% | $113M | ADD |
| Tiger Global Management Concentrated | 6.6% | $1.59B | TRIM |
| Triple Frond Partners Concentrated | 5.9% | $66M | HOLD |
| Giverny Capital Quality compounder | 5.7% | $171M | TRIM |
| Fundsmith Concentrated | 4.3% | $593M | TRIM |
| Glenview Capital Concentrated | 4.0% | $201M | ADD |
| Davis Advisors Concentrated | 4.0% | $929M | TRIM |
| Viking Global Investors Concentrated | 3.0% | $1.05B | ADD |
| Eagle Capital Quality value | 2.2% | $727M | TRIM |
| Polen Capital Quality growth | 1.6% | $186M | TRIM |
| Ruane Cunniff / Sequoia Quality compounder | 1.4% | $87M | TRIM |
| Markel Group Concentrated | 1.0% | $132M | TRIM |
| Horizon Kinetics Franchise/inflation | 0.0% | $543K | ADD |
| Brave Warrior Concentrated | 0.0% | $210K | HOLD |
Position size = share of that manager’s reported long US-equity portfolio. The consensus score weights each holder by quality tier, position size, and whether they were buying or trimming — then discounts very crowded names. It measures agreement among these managers, not expected return.