ALT
Sign up for demo
TOTAL PORTFOLIO ALLOCATION

Bringing private markets to Total Portfolio Allocation.

An investment-aware client for your data, research, models, and portfolio decisions. Connect the investment team’s analysis to the CIO’s allocation choices and the committee’s opportunity set.

Keep control of your data. Put it to work through Alt Indices.

Sign up for demo Bring one live question
Demo appointments from 1 October 2026
Understand. Allocate. Monitor. · One portfolio. One research layer. One workflow.
THE SAME PORTFOLIO · THREE PERSPECTIVES
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE
Which opportunities can we pursue?
CIO
Where are our teams adding investment value?
INVESTMENT TEAMS
Understand what we are really buying
Illustrative data · prototype Open the prototype →
WHY NOW

As institutions transition from traditional Strategic Asset Allocation (SAA) models to the Total Portfolio Approach (TPA), private assets need the same transparency, comparability, and benchmark rigour long-established in public markets.

LIVE PROTOTYPE · ILLUSTRATIVE DATA Select a role to see its question on the same portfolio.

One portfolio. Every role’s question.

INVESTMENT TEAMS Understand what we are really buying

Illustrative team names and reporting lines. Not a claim that every institution has this structure.

INVESTMENT TEAMS · {{ teamLabel }}

Do these two managers actually diversify our portfolio, or do they invest in the same companies and operate in the same deal network?

ANSWER

Their strategy labels differ, but they share several underlying companies and frequently invest alongside the same counterparties. The second manager adds some distinct investments, but less diversification than the labels alone suggest.

Holding records · 2 funds
Quarterly schedules of investments, 30 Jun 2026. Limitation: one fund reports at cost only.
Transaction observations · 14 rounds
Press releases and filings, 2019–2025. Limitation: round participants not always disclosed in full.
Entity resolution · model input
Company identities matched across sources. Limitation: 2 of 22 matches below confidence threshold, flagged.
{{ aViewHint }}
{{ sharedTitle }}
{{ sharedCount }}
{{ it.name }}{{ it.meta }}

A shared network is a reason to investigate connected exposures. It is not, by itself, proof that the managers own the same risks.

Compare the additional exposure Next action

What actually drove this fund’s performance?

ANSWER

Most of the valuation uplift came from a small group of holdings. The analysis separates changes in operating performance, valuation assumptions, and realised exits, so you can see whether the result reflects broad portfolio progress or a few concentrated outcomes.

Quarterly report · Fund IV
Portfolio company summaries, 30 Jun 2026. Limitation: operating metrics disclosed for 12 of 17 holdings.
Valuation policy · document
Manager valuation policy, revised 1 Jan 2025. Limitation: multiples basis not itemised per holding.
Exit notices · 2 transactions
Distribution notices, Mar and Nov 2025. Limitation: none.
FUND PERFORMANCE
Fund IV · net multiple 2.1x, of which 1.1x uplift since entry
Select a holding
OPERATING CHANGES
{{ h.op }}
VALUATION CHANGES
{{ h.val }}
EXITS
{{ h.exit }}

Each holding’s change in carrying value between entry and 30 Jun 2026 is split into reported operating movement (revenue and margin), the change in the valuation basis applied by the manager, and realised proceeds. Where operating data is missing or the valuation basis is not disclosed, the driver is marked as not established rather than estimated.

Test the assumption that matters most Next action

What kind of venture manager is this, based on how it actually invests?

ANSWER

Its observed pattern is an early entrant: it first invested in several companies before their major valuation milestones, rather than joining only after they were established winners. The profile also shows how often that pattern appears across the wider investment record.

Investment universe · 19 first entries
All first-entry investments 2016–2022 from fund schedules. Limitation: 2 entry dates unverified.
Round observations · 61 rounds
Filings and announcements to 30 Jun 2026. Limitation: valuations for 9 rounds undisclosed.
Outcomes · 19 companies
IPO, acquisition, write-off or still private as at 30 Jun 2026. Limitation: 7 outcomes still open.
INVESTMENT PROFILE · SELECT TO SEE EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE · {{ profileTitle }}2016 — 2026
{{ t.name }}{{ t.outcome }}
{{ t.flag }}
First entry Later round Realised above cost Written off

These are proposed behavioural categories, not regulatory credit ratings or verified predictors of returns. A manager can exhibit more than one behaviour. Universe: 19 first-entry investments 2016–2022, 17 with verified entry dates, non-successes included.

Compare this profile with our existing managers Next action
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE · OPPORTUNITY COVERAGE

Why did this secondary opportunity never reach our investment committee?

ANSWER

It fell between two mandates. The venture team could invest in primary rounds but not secondary purchases. The secondaries team could buy fund interests but not direct company shares. Neither team owned this opportunity, so it stopped before diligence.

Venture mandate · policy
Investment policy statement, section 4.2, approved 12 Mar 2025. Limitation: none.
Secondaries mandate · policy
Investment policy statement, section 6.1, approved 12 Mar 2025. Limitation: none.
Opportunity record · inbound
Broker teaser received 4 Aug 2026, direct share secondary, Series D company. Limitation: pricing indicative.
NO ASSIGNED OWNER
Direct company share secondary
Series D company · existing shareholder selling
The opportunity was not rejected on investment merit. It did not have a route through the institution.
PROPOSED ROUTE · PREVIEWNO POLICY CHANGED
Secondaries team leads, venture team joins the review

Direct company share secondaries would be assigned to the secondaries team with a joint review by the venture team that covers the company’s stage. This is a preview for the committee to consider, not a change to either mandate.

Customer benefit · Identify opportunities that fall outside existing team boundaries and make their route through the institution explicit.

Boundary · This establishes an eligibility or routing barrier. It does not prove that the institution could have secured an allocation or earned a particular return.

Explore a route for this opportunity Next action

Why did this Canadian opportunity never reach our investment committee?

ANSWER

It was excluded by geography. The current mandate limits new private-market commitments to North America excluding Canada until the 2027 policy review, so the opportunity stopped at the eligibility screen before any team assessed it.

Opportunity received Geography filter · Canada excluded until 2027 review Team assessment · not reached Committee · not reached

One condition stopped this opportunity. The team-boundary explanation does not apply here and is not combined with it.

CIO · {{ cioQLabel }}

Why did our institution not get access to this IPO or secondary?

ANSWER

It was excluded by geography. The current mandate limits new private-market commitments to North America excluding Canada until the 2027 policy review, so the opportunity stopped at the eligibility screen before any team assessed it.

Allocation timeline · policy
Geographic scope for new commitments, approved 12 Mar 2025, review due 2027. Limitation: none.
Team mandates · policy
Investment policy statement, sections 4.2 and 6.1. Limitation: none.
Opportunity record · inbound
Broker teaser received 4 Aug 2026, LP-interest secondary, Series D+ company, Canada. Limitation: pricing indicative.
MANDATE CHECKLP-interest secondary · Series D+ · Canada
GeographyCanada excluded
Venture team boundaryNot reached
Secondaries team boundaryNot reached
Liquidity budgetPasses

One condition stopped this opportunity. Not rejected on investment merit; this establishes an eligibility barrier, it does not prove the institution could have secured an allocation.

See the geography filter in the committee view Next action

Which teams are selecting stronger managers relative to comparable managers and their markets?

ANSWER

The European buyout team’s selected managers performed strongly against their comparable-manager group. The North American growth sleeve also performed well, but its selected managers were closer to their peer benchmark. The dashboard separates these comparisons rather than treating the strongest market return as the strongest manager-selection result.

Fund cash flows and NAVs · observed
Administrator statements to 30 Jun 2026. Limitation: two funds report one quarter in arrears.
Comparable-manager groups · model input
Peer sets by observed strategy, stage and vintage. Limitation: private credit peer set has 11 members.
Public-market comparison · model-based
Listed index with matched cash-flow timing. Limitation: shown separately, not netted against peer results.
TEAM / SLEEVEPORTFOLIO RESULTCOMPARABLE-MANAGER RESULTPUBLIC-MARKET COMPARISONEVIDENCE COVERAGE
SELECTED MANAGERS
{{ m.name }}{{ m.vsPeer }}
PEER COMPARISON

{{ r.peerNote }}

UNDERLYING RESEARCH

{{ r.research }}

Customer benefit · Understand where selection outcomes are stronger, where exposure to the market explains more of the result, and where further analysis could improve allocation choices.

Teams are not ranked using raw returns across incompatible strategies or vintages. Manager-selection comparisons, allocation effects, and market comparisons are kept distinct. Outperformance is evidence to examine, not automatic proof of team skill.

Compare the next allocation choices Next action
Ask an investment question Inspect the answer Explore the evidence Compare an alternative Continue the work

Accepted findings, model assumptions and alternative cases are retained so later work can reuse them. Customer holdings, mandates and research stay in the customer’s tenant.

02 · WHAT WE DO

Where am I really exposed?

Connect public and private markets

See how investors, managers, funds, securities, co-investments, intermediaries, and underlying companies connect across markets. A shared identity layer reveals look-through exposure and relationships that separate systems cannot see.

SHARED IDENTITY LAYER · CLICK A VEHICLE
ILLUSTRATIVE
Endowment PUBLIC VEHICLES PRIVATE VEHICLES INSTRUMENTS {{ i.label }} NVIDIA
{{ s02Cap }}
One route lit at a time — the same company reached through different vehicles and instruments. Fund and ETF names are illustrative.

One connected map of your portfolio.

HOW WE DO IT

The model is aware of structure, language, and evidence

Three forms of awareness sit behind every answer in the prototype above. Each chip jumps to the place where you meet it.

01
Topology-aware

We measure where managers and investments sit in the market network. A highly central VC fund can be a positive signal, reflecting stronger access to investors, companies, and deal flow. In private credit, the same centrality can signal risk, revealing concentration around shared borrowers, sponsors, or counterparties.

Manager A Manager B
TOPOLOGY · DEAL OVERLAP
Same opportunity set, bought twice

Purple dots are deals both managers hold. The ontology makes the deals comparable; the network shows the overlap.

Shared deals Distinct deals
02
Ontology-aware

The model understands market language: strategies, deal rounds, industries, geographies, and lifecycle stages, so funds are compared by what they invest in, not what they call themselves.

ONTOLOGY · MARKET KNOWLEDGE
Strategies Deal rounds Lifecycle stages Geographies GICS-aligned industries One comparable vocabulary

A “growth equity fund” and a “late-stage venture fund” investing at the same stage of a company’s lifecycle are treated as peers, regardless of label.

03
Source-aware

Every answer in the prototype opens onto its evidence: the holding record, document, policy, transaction observation, or model input behind it, with its date and limitations.

SOURCE EVIDENCE · BEHIND ONE NUMBER
30 JUN 2026
Quarterly report · Fund IV

Portfolio company summaries, opened directly from the performance figure they support.

Limitation: operating metrics disclosed for 11 of 17 holdings.

04 · WHAT WE DO

What is driving performance?

Explain the total portfolio

Trace how interest rates, credit conditions, liquidity, and public-market valuations affect financing costs, exits, cash flows, and valuations across funds, co-investments, public holdings, and intermediaries.

MACRO CONDITIONS
Interest rates
Credit conditions
Liquidity
Public-market valuations
TRANSMISSION
Financing costs
Exits
Cash flows
Valuations
CAUSAL GRAPH
One total portfolio

Funds · Co-investments · Public holdings · Intermediaries

ILLUSTRATIVE
{{ ledgerTitle }}
DRIVER CHANNEL CONTRIBUTION
Public valuationsExits
{{ rowPvSign }}
Interest ratesFinancing costs
{{ rowIrSign }}
LiquidityValuations
{{ rowLqSign }}
Credit conditionsCash flows
{{ rowCcSign }}

Every driver traced to funds, co-investments, public holdings, and intermediaries. Where evidence cannot support a decomposition, we show "Driver not established", not an invented explanation.

Attribute performance and test scenarios through one Total Portfolio Approach.

THE WHOLE PORTFOLIO, CONNECTED

Make allocation decisions from one connected view

Alt Indices is a private-markets client that connects the questions asked by investment teams, CIOs, and committees, using the same data, investment relationships, and institutional context.

Keep your data and existing systems. Add a private-markets client that connects the evidence, understands the relationships, and helps you work through the portfolio question.

Sign up for demo Bring one live question
Demo appointments from 1 October 2026
ALT

Convert information into investor confidence.

CONTACT pegg@altindices.com Adelaide St E, Toronto, ON
© 2026 Alt Indices. All rights reserved.Illustrative prototype · data shown is not investment advice