What the ratings describe
The AQ Score™ is AltQ's proprietary, standardized rating of a fund. It is calculated by a rules-based methodology, and every score is reviewed by AltQ's research team before publication. It is a fund-level research opinion, not personalized investment advice.
The published grade combines a letter component for forward potential and a numeric component for realized proof. The meaning of each published category, any qualifiers, and cases where a score cannot be issued are explained in the score legend displayed alongside the report. An AQ Score™ is not a forecast of a specific return, a credit rating, a recommendation, an assessment of suitability, or a guarantee of liquidity or capital preservation.
Data Trust is published alongside the AQ Score™ and is not combined with it. It shows how complete, current and verifiable the evidence is, whether obtained from public sources or disclosed to AltQ directly by the manager. Where evidence is insufficient, a rating may be limited or not issued. Stronger evidence is not the same as a stronger fund; a fund may have a favorable AQ Score™ and weaker Data Trust, or the reverse.
Who and what we cover
AltQ researches private-market and semi-liquid investment vehicles, including eligible interval funds and tender-offer funds, subject to its coverage scope and sufficient available information. Fund identity, legal vehicle, strategy, share class and reporting period are established before substantive comparisons are made. Where a fund's legal structure changes over time, historical and current facts may need different descriptions.
Coverage is limited by fund type and by the evidence available. Coverage does not imply a favorable view, sponsorship, regulatory approval or endorsement. Some funds may be excluded, unrated, or shown with restricted evidence because the source record is inadequate or insufficiently comparable.
The research workflow
AltQ uses a structured and gated workflow intended to produce comparable assessments across covered funds:
| Research stage | Illustrative questions |
|---|---|
| Identity and terms | What is the legal fund, manager, structure, share class, strategy, fee schedule, redemption or repurchase arrangement? |
| Historical proof | What do filed or otherwise supported returns, cash flows, distributions, realized investments and financial statements actually demonstrate? |
| Portfolio prospects | What exposures, concentrations, valuation characteristics, debt structures and unrealized holdings can be identified? What remains unknown? |
| Risk and conflicts | What do reporting, related-party arrangements, leverage, liquidity commitments and governance disclosures show? |
| Market context (Pulse) | How have comparable liquid markets and public reference assets moved, and what does that establish, or fail to establish, about the subject fund? |
| Evidence assurance | Which conclusions trace to original filings, corroborating sources, manager-supplied material or inference? |
| Review and publication | Are identity, period, class, key figures, uncertainty and the proposed rating sufficiently supported for publication? |
Technology may be used to ingest filings, extract facts, normalize source records, perform deterministic calculations and assist with analytical writing. Automated extraction and AI-assisted analysis can make mistakes. Every AQ Score™ is reviewed by AltQ's research team before publication. That review is a research control, not an audit or warranty of accuracy.
The three lenses used in the AQ Review™
Proof: what the fund has demonstrated
Proof focuses on the historical record rather than a manager's projections. Depending on available evidence, it may consider performance, net asset development, realized proceeds, distributions, financial results, persistence of reported outcomes and the quality of their documentation. Changes in reporting periods and class-level fee arrangements can materially affect comparability.
Prospects: what remains exposed to future outcomes
Prospects examines the unrealized portfolio and the uncertainties around it, including investment composition, valuation dependence, concentration, leverage, liquidity obligations, manager execution and governance. An inference about a private portfolio is identified as an inference rather than represented as an observed holding or independently verified NAV.
Pulse: relevant public-market context
Pulse provides outside market evidence and comparisons that may help assess a fund's exposure to changing conditions. Public-market movements do not mechanically determine private-fund NAV. Public comparators can differ in leverage, liquidity, valuation timing, security selection, capital structure and fees. Findings may therefore be directional rather than predictive.
Semi-liquid features receive particular attention
Interval and tender-offer structures often require analysis beyond traditional mutual-fund metrics. Areas that may influence the AltQ research include:
- Actual liquidity rights: interval repurchase rules or discretionary tender offers, caps, frequency, notice periods, proration and the possibility of suspension or modification;
- Asset/liability alignment: comparison of underlying asset liquidity with potential repurchase obligations and available cash or credit facilities;
- Fee economics: management, incentive, servicing, financing, acquired-fund and other costs, including waivers and differences between stated expense totals and economic costs;
- Valuation and mark timing: use of estimates, Level 3 holdings, stale observations, reported value versus comparable current-market movements;
- Conflicts and governance: related-party investments or services, allocation, fee layers, valuation oversight and changes in disclosures;
- Quality of performance evidence: net versus gross performance, class differences, capital-flow effects and comparisons to liquid benchmarks.
A favorable research assessment does not negate redemption restrictions, stale marks or other investment risks.
What Data Trust indicates
Data Trust is an evidence-quality indicator. It is designed to show whether AltQ could establish a sufficiently supported factual basis for the published research. Relevant considerations may include original-source traceability, completeness across reporting periods, corroboration of facts, currency of available filings, transparency of holdings and valuation information, and unresolved contradictions.
AltQ uses a six-band color-based Data Trust scale, from Red to Blue, defined in the legend on this page and in the platform. Orange is the baseline for a fund assessed on its public regulatory filings; Red and Brown indicate evidence below that baseline. Yellow and above reflect additional information supplied by the manager, with Blue the most complete. The higher the Data Trust band, the closer the evidence comes to the information an institutional investor would typically review in a private-markets due diligence data room. Data Trust is not an audit opinion, assurance attestation, regulator finding or claim that every underlying fact has been independently verified.
- Red
- Brown
- Orange
- Yellow
- Green
- Blue
Orange is the baseline for a fund assessed on its public filings. Yellow and above reflect additional information supplied by the manager. The color shows confidence in the evidence, not fund quality.
How we treat incomplete or inconsistent information
Research is limited by what is available. When source records do not support a metric, it may be shown as unavailable or qualified, and a rating may be limited or deferred. A dash or blank should not be read as zero. AltQ uses commercially reasonable efforts to distinguish estimates, inferred exposures and modeled comparisons from facts extracted directly from source documents.
Metrics must be considered together with the applicable fund/share class, calculation basis, source and as-of date. Values from different filings or time windows may not be directly comparable. Report users should review source notes and fund-level qualifications rather than treating a single grade as an exhaustive conclusion.
Ratings, peer comparisons and changes over time
The AQ Score™ and supporting analysis may change when new filings, corrected source records, methodology revisions or material facts warrant re-evaluation. A later rating is not proof that the earlier rating was negligent or that a particular return will follow. AltQ uses commercially reasonable efforts to record an effective date and methodology version with each score.
Peer groups and reference indexes are analytical choices, not guarantees of comparable legal structures, strategies, returns or liquidity. AltQ may limit or qualify comparisons when a defensible peer set is unavailable. No ranking is intended to be read as universal across materially different funds.
AltQ seeks to publish material methodology changes with an effective date and a brief explanation of their nature. Proprietary coefficients, weighting rules, score boundaries and internal anti-manipulation controls may remain confidential. AltQ seeks to explain what the published score measures and what it does not.
Independence, corrections and limitations
Scores are produced through the research process and are not determined by whether an issuer purchases services or receives favorable coverage. AltQ's Editorial Independence & Conflicts Policy explains the separation between commercial relationships and the ratings. Readers may submit documented factual corrections to info@altq.ai. A correction request does not give an issuer approval or veto power over analysis.
Important: AQ Score™ and Data Trust are proprietary research assessments, not personalized investment advice, NRSRO credit ratings, SEC-approved certifications, guarantees of investment outcomes, or substitutes for reading current fund offering and reporting documents.
Read the Regulatory Status and Research Disclosures & Risk Limitations before relying on any report.