Provide more examples of ETF

Screening Filters

1. 1-Year Price Change ≥ 3% (year_price_change_pct: {min: 3})

   • Purpose: Ensure ETFs have at least modest positive recent performance.
   • Rationale:
     • You asked for “best long term ETF” and then “more examples.”
     • For long-term investing, you don’t want persistently weak performers, but if we set the bar too high, we’d exclude many solid, diversified funds.
     • Lowering the minimum from 5% (in the prior screen) to 3% makes room for more ETFs that are still positive but may have had a slightly softer recent year—this is realistic when broad markets fluctuate.

2. Theme: Large Cap Blend Equities (themes: ['Large Cap Blend Equities'])

   • Purpose: Focus on core, broad-market stock ETFs.
   • Rationale:
     • “Best long term ETF” typically points to broad, diversified, core holdings rather than niche sector or ultra-aggressive strategies.
     • Large-cap blend funds hold big, established companies across both growth and value styles, often resembling broad indexes like the S&P 500 or total market funds.
     • These are common foundational ETFs in long-term portfolios.

3. >90% in Stocks (stock_position_pct: ['MoreThan90Pct'])

   • Purpose: Emphasize predominantly equity ETFs.
   • Rationale:
     • For long-term growth, higher equity exposure is usually preferred, especially if you want capital appreciation over decades.
     • Requiring more than 90% in stocks filters out bond-heavy or mixed-asset funds and keeps the list focused on true equity ETFs that match a “growth over time” objective.

4. Expense Ratio ≤ 0.07% (expense_ratio: {max: 0.07})

   • Purpose: Limit results to very low-cost ETFs.
   • Rationale:
     • Costs compound against you over the long term, so low fees are crucial for long-term investors.
     • The previous query used an extremely tight cap (0.07% → 0.0007 looked like 0.07%, but here it’s now set clearly at 0.07%), which restricted the list to only the very cheapest funds.
     • Keeping a strict but slightly more realistic cap of 0.07% still ensures you get competitively priced ETFs while allowing “more examples” as you requested.

5. Inception Date Between 2000-01-01 and 2015-01-01 (inception_date: {min: '2000-01-01', max: '2015-01-01'})

   • Purpose: Include ETFs with a long enough track record, but broaden the window to show more choices.
   • Rationale:
     • For “long term” suitability, it’s helpful to see how an ETF behaved across multiple market cycles (e.g., 2008 crisis, 2020 crash, various bull/bear periods).
     • Expanding the inception range backwards to 2000 and up to 2015 increases the number of funds that:
       • Have survived for many years (often a sign of stability and investor acceptance), and
       • Have enough historical data for performance evaluation.
     • This is consistent with your request for more ETF examples, while still staying focused on established products—not brand‑new or untested funds.

Why Results Match Your Request for “More Examples of ETFs”

• The screen still targets core, long-term equity ETFs (large-cap blend, >90% stocks) suitable as major building blocks in a portfolio.
• The performance threshold is positive but more relaxed, allowing a broader set of solid funds, not just top recent performers.
• The fee cap is tight but not ultra-restrictive, which increases the number of candidates while keeping a strong focus on low-cost ETFs—key for long-term investing.
• The extended inception window adds many more established ETFs to the list while maintaining a long enough history to judge them.

Together, these adjustments keep the spirit of “best long term ETF” but intentionally widen the net to give you more examples that still fit a long-term, low-cost, broadly diversified equity strategy.