MFS Q1 2026: $297B Book Reads Like a 1924 Mutual Fund Still Would

Massachusetts Financial Services — better known as MFS Investment Management, the Boston-based firm that invented the open-end mutual fund structure in 1924 — filed its Q1 2026 Form 13F-HR reporting $297.52 billion in assets under management across 500 long positions. By dollar AUM, MFS is the 35th-largest filer in our database. By 13F shape, it is one of the cleanest expressions of a traditional, dividend-paying, balanced active-equity mandate that still exists at scale in 2026. The top 10 positions absorb $61.21 billion or 20.6% of total AUM, and the holdings tail includes Cigna, Johnson & Johnson, Taiwan Semiconductor, and JPMorgan Chase alongside the obligatory AI-platform block.

This is interesting because almost no one runs a book like this anymore. The closest peers — Capital Group's Capital World Investors, Wellington Management Group, Fidelity's FMR LLC — have either drifted into closet-indexing (top 10 near 30%+ concentrations) or specialty growth tilts. MFS has stayed structurally moderate: 20-21% top-10 concentration, sector-distributed top 30, and meaningful weights in healthcare insurance, financials, and semiconductor foundry exposure. The Q1 2026 book tells you exactly how a 101-year-old mutual fund company has decided to run AI-era equity capital.

The book at a glance

$297.52 billion total AUM (from MFS's own 13F-HR header line). 500 distinct positions. WhaleScore 59.00 — below the high-conviction smart-money tier, by design. Our WhaleScore rewards concentrated active conviction; MFS deliberately runs a more diversified book, so the score is structurally lower. That is the right tradeoff for the mandate, not a critique.

The top 10 distribute as follows:

NVDA leads at $11.56 billion and 3.97% portfolio weight. Compared with NVDA's S&P 500 index weight of roughly 6.5% in Q1 2026, this is a meaningful active underweight. The same pattern holds for AAPL (2.69% MFS vs 6.1% index), MSFT (3.66% MFS vs 7.2% index), and AMZN (2.25% MFS vs 3.9% index). MFS is running deliberate underweights on every mega-cap-tech name relative to passive benchmarks.

The 20% top-10 shape

The top 10 vs the remaining 490 positions split at 20.6% / 79.4%. The remaining 490 distribute roughly $236 billion across positions averaging $482 million each — a substantial bench of mid-conviction names that delivers most of the active alpha potential while keeping any single non-mega-cap position from being a portfolio risk.

This is the textbook "balanced diversified active" shape. By comparison, Fidelity's FMR LLC runs roughly 28% in its top 10 across some of its books, and even the legendary 30-stock concentrated portfolios at smaller boutique shops can land at 60%+ top-10 concentration. MFS sits at the diversified end of the active-mandate spectrum.

The non-tech names in the top 10 tell the story

The full top 10 is NVDA, MSFT, AAPL, GOOGL, AMZN, JPM, AVGO, TSM, JNJ, CI. Five of those are the standard mega-cap-tech block. The other five are:

• JPMorgan Chase ($4.33B, 1.49%) — banking franchise. With JPM's S&P 500 weight around 1.2%, MFS is running a slight overweight on the universal-bank leader, consistent with a balanced book that wants financials exposure beyond what indexes prescribe.
• Broadcom ($3.42B, 1.17%) — the semiconductor name that pairs networking, custom AI silicon, and the legacy VMware acquisition. Index weight is roughly 2.1%, so MFS is slightly underweight AVGO.
• Taiwan Semiconductor ($3.40B, 1.17%) — the only foreign ADR in the top 10. TSM at 1.17% is meaningful because Taiwan-domiciled ADRs carry geopolitical risk that pure-domestic mandates tend to discount.
• Johnson & Johnson ($3.32B, 1.14%) — diversified healthcare and pharma. Classic MFS dividend-paying defensive position. Index weight around 1.0%, so a slight overweight.
• Cigna Group ($3.11B, 1.07%) — managed-care insurance. Index weight around 0.3%, making this a roughly 3.5x index overweight. Cigna sitting in the top 10 of a $297 billion book is the kind of position that shows MFS still believes in valuation-led active management; managed care is currently one of the cheapest healthcare sub-sectors on forward earnings multiples.

The Cigna overweight is the most distinctive single signal in the MFS top 10. It is a deliberate bet on managed-care multiple expansion, made inside a book that is simultaneously underweight every mega-cap tech name relative to the index. This is the active-equity analog of "buy what is cheap, underweight what is expensive" — which is exactly the philosophy MFS has run for decades.

The AUM trajectory

MFS's reported 13F AUM has scaled with the market through the 2025–2026 cycle. The position count has stayed near 500 throughout, indicating the firm is not letting AUM growth force position-count drift — they are sizing existing positions up rather than adding tail names. That is consistent with a mandate that prizes conviction-per-holding over breadth.

What the MFS book tells institutional readers

Three signals matter for cross-fund pattern analysis:

1. Deliberate underweight on mega-cap tech. Every top-10 tech name (NVDA, MSFT, AAPL, GOOGL, AMZN) is held at portfolio weights below S&P 500 index weights. This means MFS-managed mutual funds are structurally less correlated to the AI-platform leadership trade than index funds — a feature, not a bug, for clients who want lower beta to that theme.
2. Healthcare insurance as a valuation bet. Cigna at 3.5x index weight and JNJ at slight overweight together signal MFS's active healthcare team is overweight large-cap healthcare relative to passive benchmarks. If the managed-care multiple compresses further, this position takes pressure first.
3. Banking and semiconductor foundry exposure. JPM slight overweight and TSM presence in top 10 indicate MFS's view that banking franchises and offshore foundry capacity are durable rather than commoditizing.

What to track next

The next MFS Form 13F-HR is due August 14, 2026 for Q2 2026. Watch:

• Whether Cigna stays in the top 10. The Q1 2026 weight (1.07%) suggests MFS is committed to the managed-care thesis; a trim would be the cleanest signal of view shift.
• Whether NVDA portfolio weight climbs above 4.5% (currently 3.97%). MFS catching up to the index on Nvidia would be the simplest possible signal that the firm has capitulated to the AI-platform leadership story.
• Tesla position size. Tesla is absent from the MFS top 10. The S&P 500 index weight forces every passive fund to hold Tesla; MFS's explicit underweight (size unconfirmed in the public 13F, but visible in the long tail) is a deliberate active call.

Read the full MFS holdings table on the MFS Investment Management profile page. The institutional signals feed tracks MFS alongside other diversified active managers. For more on how to interpret a traditional balanced mutual-fund 13F shape, see our explainer hub.

Source: SEC Form 13F-HR filed by Massachusetts Financial Services Co (CIK 0000912938) for the period ending 2026-03-31; available via EDGAR — MFS filer index.