Verdicts genuinely change. Free email alert the moment BTCRX's does — no target price to set, unlike "Alert" above.
Whether this fund clears the published standards, and the filings behind that answer. The screen runs first and nothing on the trading side can override it.
Structure, momentum, positioning and levels. Separate from the Sharia verdict above, which this side never overrides.
Vest Bitcoin Strategy Managed Volitility Fund · World Funds Trust
2 holdings
This fund holds short positions, so exposure is counted gross — long and short both count as exposure rather than netting off, and the weights below therefore sum to 101% of net assets rather than 100%. Shares of the portfolio are shown as shares of that gross exposure.
UNVERIFIED None of this fund's 2 holdings are companies in our screened equity universe. Our look-through screens equities, so it does not apply to a fund holding bonds, sukuk or other instruments — this is not a gap in our data about the fund.
Largest holdings: iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF.
2 holdings, 1 matched (4% of weight). Portfolio as of 2026-07-31, filed 2026-09-23. Source: SEC Form N-PORT.
0.79% of this portfolio’s income is non-permissible — weighted across holdings, computed over 4% of portfolio weight (1 of 2 holdings). The common approach purifies that proportion of income received — dividends — not of the position’s value. We report the ratio; what to do with it is a question for your own scholar.
Portfolio shares are withheld: coverage is below the floor needed to state one. The holdings themselves are below, because the names are evidence you can check.
| Holding | Status | Weight | Every methodology, and the debt ratio behind it |
|---|---|---|---|
| iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF | UNSCREENED | 96.10% | no in-house ratios for this holding |
| SECT-B.ST Default | COMPLIANT | 4.50% | AAOIFI0.1% Usmani3.4% Dow Jones Islamicpass S&P Shariahpass MSCI Islamic1.7% MSCI Islamic M-Seriespass FTSE Shariah1.7% |
The published standards disagree about this fund by 5 points of portfolio weight — 4.5% of it passes AAOIFI, 0.0% passes Usmani. Which number is yours depends on which standard you follow.
These bars are the financial-ratio result under each standard — debt, receivables and interest income. They do not screen what the business does, so a holding can pass every ratio here and still be questionable or non-compliant on activity. The blended verdict above accounts for both.
ratios pass on 4.5% ratios fail on 0.0% 96.1% not rated under AAOIFI
ratios pass on 0.0% ratios fail on 4.5% 96.1% not rated under Usmani
ratios pass on 4.5% ratios fail on 0.0% 96.1% not rated under Dow Jones Islamic
ratios pass on 4.5% ratios fail on 0.0% 96.1% not rated under S&P Shariah
ratios pass on 0.0% ratios fail on 4.5% 96.1% not rated under MSCI Islamic
ratios pass on 4.5% ratios fail on 0.0% 96.1% not rated under MSCI Islamic M-Series
ratios pass on 0.0% ratios fail on 4.5% 96.1% not rated under FTSE Shariah
1 of 2 listed holdings carry our own per-methodology verdicts (5% of weight). The rest hold a provider verdict with no methodology breakdown, and are counted as rated by none.
Whether the technical picture shows an edge right now. Separate from the Sharia verdict, which this side never overrides.
HTR reads the fund's filed holdings and screens each one, then reports the result by weight. A holding it cannot cover far enough is reported as unrated rather than counted as a pass.
| Holding | Weight | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| iShares Bitcoin Trust ETFnot matched to a ticker | 96.10% | Not screened |
| SECT-B.STDefault | 4.50% | Compliant |
Top 2 of 2 holdings, 100.6% of the fund by weight. Every holding is screened, not only these.
The positions keeping this fund short of 100% compliant by weight.
Verdict history for BTCRX. A verdict that never moved is recorded too, so a quiet history reads as measured rather than missing.
Tracked since 2026-09-07.
Market structure by timeframe, read from real bars. A bias per timeframe rather than a forecast — timeframes disagreeing is information, not noise.
The questions worth asking about any verdict on this page, answered plainly.
No. HTR reads the fund's filed holdings and screens each one, then reports the result by weight. A fund marketed as Islamic still gets the same look-through as any other.
It is the share of the fund whose holdings HTR cannot cover far enough to rate. It is reported as unrated rather than counted as compliant, because a holding nobody screened should not look like one that passed.
It matters, and it is noted, but it does not replace the look-through. The board's judgement and the holdings screen are shown separately so you can see when they agree and when they do not.
When the fund files new holdings, and on a rolling basis besides. The date on the verdict above is the last time this fund was actually recomputed.
Open research, not a fatwa. HTR applies published screening standards to filings and publishes what they say, including when they disagree. Nothing here is financial advice or a recommendation to buy or sell. Verdicts can change when new filings land.
Same screen, different answers. Comparison is where the standards disagreeing becomes useful rather than confusing.
Peer screening computing — it will appear here on its own.
Plain-language summary of the evidence already on this page — the Sharia screen, structure, momentum, and order flow above. It explains the read; it doesn't make the call. Generated on demand (a live AI call), never run automatically.