{"id":76,"date":"2026-09-26T23:00:10","date_gmt":"2026-09-27T06:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/09\/26\/etf-global-review\/"},"modified":"2026-09-26T23:00:10","modified_gmt":"2026-09-27T06:00:10","slug":"etf-global-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/09\/26\/etf-global-review\/","title":{"rendered":"ETF Global Review 2026: Data Buyers"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Verdict first.<\/strong> ETF Global (etfg.com) is a ratings and screening product for people who select ETFs, and on the evidence of its own site as read on 27 September 2026 it does that job with a coherent, clearly described model stack. Buy it if your workflow ends in a fund shortlist you have to defend: advisory due diligence, manager selection, exposure and risk monitoring. Skip it if your workflow <em>starts<\/em> with holdings rows, because a rating is a conclusion, and conclusions cannot be decomposed back into the constituent-level inputs a backtest, an index calculation or a holdings screen needs.<\/p>\n<p>Every page currently ranking for &quot;etf global review&quot; is either a buy-side guide to global equity funds or ETF Global&#39;s own marketing. None of them reviews ETF Global as a data vendor. This article does, and it dates every claim about ETFG to etfg.com as read on 27 September 2026. Where the site does not publish something, it says so rather than filling the gap from memory.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"what-is-etf-global-and-what-does-etf-global-review-actually-mean\">What is ETF Global, and what does &quot;ETF Global review&quot; actually mean?<\/h2>\n<p>ETF Global is an independent ETF reference data and research provider whose site describes it as offering &quot;independent and objective research enabling investors to generate superior risk-adjusted returns balanced by disciplined risk management&quot; (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.etfg.com\">etfg.com<\/a>, read 27 September 2026). In practice that means daily-updated ratings, exposures and a screening engine across the exchange-traded product universe.<\/p>\n<p>Two different searches hide behind the same phrase. One is a vendor review: an analyst or procurement lead deciding whether to license ETFG. The other is a product review: an investor trying to work out whether a global equity or thematic ETF is worth owning, where &quot;global&quot; is the fund&#39;s mandate, not the vendor&#39;s name.<\/p>\n<p>This article answers the first question in full. The second is handled near the end, in the section on reviewing global and thematic ETFs from holdings files rather than fact sheets, because that is the version of the question a professional reader can actually act on.<\/p>\n<p>One definition worth keeping: <strong>an analytics vendor sells you a conclusion about a fund; a constituent data vendor sells you the fund&#39;s contents.<\/strong> Almost every disappointment in this category comes from buying one while needing the other.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"what-does-etf-global-sell-in-2026\">What does ETF Global sell in 2026?<\/h2>\n<p>ETF Global&#39;s product surface, as described on its own site on 27 September 2026, is built around four things: quantitative research models, a scanner, daily ratings and analysis, and a reverse-lookup that runs from an equity back to the ETFs holding it. Portfolio construction and back-testing sit alongside them, and the site offers a free trial.<\/p>\n<p>On the models, the site states that they were developed over many years and integrate fundamental analysis, behavioural finance, global sentiment, qualitative evaluation and risk management. That is a description of inputs rather than methodology, which is normal for a commercial scoring product, but it means an outside reviewer cannot verify how the components are weighted or how the scores behave out of sample.<\/p>\n<p>The individual components, in the site&#39;s own framing:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>ETFG Scanner.<\/strong> Described as a comprehensive research engine to dynamically screen the universe of ETPs in a variety of ways.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Ratings and analysis.<\/strong> The site describes risk and reward ratings, exposures and detailed analysis for thousands of ETFs, updated daily, in one place.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Reverse lookup.<\/strong> The site describes showing which ETFs own a particular equity, plus the aggregated ETF ownership of that equity&#39;s market capitalisation. That is a genuinely useful primitive, and it is not a common feature.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Portfolio construction and back-testing.<\/strong> The homepage references creating and back-testing a portfolio of up to 100 ETFs.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Free trial.<\/strong> The site invites readers to start a free trial.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>What is not published on the site, and therefore not verifiable in this review: the exact number of ETPs covered, the update cut-off time, which identifier types accompany the data, whether full constituent files are delivered and in what format, history depth, redistribution terms, and any price. None of that is a criticism of the product. It is a statement about what a buyer can confirm before a sales call, which is a legitimate evaluation criterion in itself.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"who-etf-global-is-built-for-and-who-should-skip-it\">Who ETF Global is built for, and who should skip it<\/h2>\n<p>ETF Global is built for selection and due diligence: people whose deliverable is a defensible shortlist. If your output is a fund recommendation, an exposure report, a watchlist alert or an investment committee memo, a ratings-and-scanner product compresses a large universe into something arguable in a meeting, and that compression is the entire value.<\/p>\n<p>It is a weaker fit for teams whose output is a model. A quant researcher testing a sector tilt, an exchange constructing an index-linked product, a fintech populating a holdings screen and a risk team running look-through on overlapping exposures all need identifier-keyed rows with dates attached. A daily score on a fund cannot be reverse-engineered into the fund&#39;s holdings, and no amount of screening flexibility changes that.<\/p>\n<p>The honest way to put it: if you would be unhappy receiving the answer without the arithmetic, you are not the buyer for an analytics product. We compare the two shapes directly in <a href=\"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/09\/09\/americanetp-vs-etf-global\/\">AmericanETP vs ETF Global 2026<\/a>, and the broader landscape in <a href=\"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/09\/15\/etf-global-alternatives\/\">ETF Global Alternatives: 2026 Options<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>There is a third group that should think carefully: teams with no engineering capacity who nonetheless want raw data. They will buy files they cannot load, and a hosted analytics interface is the better purchase for them, whatever the per-row economics look like.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"ratings-versus-raw-constituents-the-distinction-that-decides-the-purchase\">Ratings versus raw constituents: the distinction that decides the purchase<\/h2>\n<p>Analytics vendors ship conclusions. Constituent vendors ship inputs. That one sentence resolves most of the confusion in this category, and it is worth more in an RFP than any feature matrix.<\/p>\n<p>A rating is an opinion expressed as a number. It is built on assumptions you did not choose, weighted in proportions you cannot see, and revised on a schedule you do not control. That is acceptable when the rating is an input to human judgement. It is not acceptable when the rating is an input to another model, because you have then stacked one opaque estimator on top of your own and lost the ability to attribute error.<\/p>\n<p>Constituent files fail differently, and more usefully. If a holdings row is wrong, you can see that it is wrong, because it names a security, a weight and a date.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"point-in-time-integrity-and-survivorship-bias\">Point-in-time integrity and survivorship bias<\/h3>\n<p>The question that separates serious constituent feeds from convenient ones is whether you can reconstruct what a fund or index held on a past date, as it was reported on that date. A restated file tells you what the provider now believes was true. A point-in-time archive tells you what you would have seen.<\/p>\n<p>Backtests built on restated or current-membership data inherit survivorship bias: delisted names, closed funds and dropped index members vanish, and the strategy looks better than it was. The defence is boring and mechanical, which is to hold dated files and never overwrite them.<\/p>\n<p>AmericanETP&#39;s answer to that criterion is archived constituent list datafiles back to July 2009, delivered as flat CSV. The live side updates twice daily, with a primary run at 6pm EST and a secondary run around noon EST, across 3878 US and global indexes and US-traded ETFs, with Bloomberg FIGIs included in the holdings files. Membership changes are tracked separately in the <a href=\"\/Constituent-Change-Report\">Constituent Change Report<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The delivery question deserves its own answer rather than a default: see <a href=\"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/09\/01\/etf-holdings-data-api\/\">ETF Holdings Data API vs CSV Feeds<\/a> for when each shape is right, and <a href=\"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/09\/06\/daily-etf-holdings-download\/\">Daily ETF Holdings Download: 2026 Guide<\/a> for what a file-based workflow looks like day to day.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"how-do-you-evaluate-any-etf-data-vendor-a-seven-point-checklist\">How do you evaluate any ETF data vendor? A seven-point checklist<\/h2>\n<p>Judge vendors on seven axes, and insist on written answers for the ones their websites do not publish. Most disappointments in this market are not quality failures, they are scope mismatches that a twenty-minute checklist would have caught.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Universe breadth.<\/strong> Does it cover global indexes alongside US-listed ETFs, or US-listed products only? A good answer is a specific count with a definition of what counts. AmericanETP publishes 3878 US and global indexes and US-traded ETFs.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Update cadence and cut-off.<\/strong> Daily is not a specification. A good answer names a time and a time zone, such as a 6pm EST primary run with an earlier intraday secondary file. Ask what happens when a fund files late.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Identifier coverage.<\/strong> Tickers are not keys: they are reused, they change, and they collide across venues. A good answer includes at least one stable global identifier. FIGIs ship in AmericanETP&#39;s constituent holdings files, and the <a href=\"\/Bloomberg-Extensions\">Bloomberg Extensions<\/a> documentation covers how they map.<\/li>\n<li><strong>History depth and integrity.<\/strong> Ask for the earliest available file date and whether archives are point-in-time or restated. AmericanETP&#39;s archive runs back to July 2009 as stored files.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Delivery mechanics.<\/strong> CSV, FTP, API or terminal. The right answer is whichever your pipeline already consumes without a translation layer. AmericanETP provides FTP access and direct <a href=\"\/Downloads\">file downloads<\/a>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Fundamentals alongside holdings.<\/strong> Leverage flags, constituent counts and fund descriptions are what stop a 3x product being treated as a plain-vanilla one in an automated screen.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Licensing scope.<\/strong> Seats, internal versus external redistribution, archive rights on termination, and whether derived data is yours. This is almost never on a website and almost always negotiable.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Points one through six are frequently published. Point seven essentially never is, at any vendor, including the large ones.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"how-does-etf-global-compare-with-the-larger-reference-data-houses\">How does ETF Global compare with the larger reference data houses?<\/h2>\n<p>They are not competing for the same budget line. ETF Global is an ETF-specialist analytics product; FactSet, Refinitiv and S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence are broad institutional platforms; Morningstar is a fund research franchise with an institutional data arm; AmericanETP is a constituent file feed. The useful comparison is workflow shape, not feature count.<\/p>\n<p>The table below is positioning only. No pricing page or product page from FactSet, Refinitiv, Morningstar or S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence was fetched for this review, so nothing here is presented as a sourced claim about their current features, and no figures are quoted.<\/p>\n<div class=\"ab-table\">\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Vendor<\/th>\n<th>Primarily built to deliver<\/th>\n<th>Workflow it assumes<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>ETF Global<\/td>\n<td>ETF ratings, exposures and screening (per etfg.com, 27 Sep 2026)<\/td>\n<td>Analyst selects and defends funds in a hosted interface<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>FactSet<\/td>\n<td>Broad multi-asset analytics platform<\/td>\n<td>Integrated desktop plus enterprise feeds<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Refinitiv<\/td>\n<td>Broad market and reference data infrastructure<\/td>\n<td>Enterprise-scale ingestion across asset classes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Morningstar<\/td>\n<td>Fund research, ratings and classification<\/td>\n<td>Advisory and fund-selection contexts<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence<\/td>\n<td>Cross-market data and analytics<\/td>\n<td>Large institutional platform deployment<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>AmericanETP<\/td>\n<td>Daily ETF and index constituent files<\/td>\n<td>You load CSV into your own models<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<p>Where the big platforms genuinely win: breadth and integration. If you need equities, fixed income, corporate actions, estimates, filings and ETFs behind one entitlement and one support contract, a terminal or enterprise feed beats a flat file, and the procurement overhead of a single vendor is lower than that of five. A specialist file feed cannot answer a question about a bond covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Where ETF Global genuinely wins against a file feed: it has already done the analytical work. The reverse-lookup showing aggregate ETF ownership of a single equity&#39;s market cap, described on its site on 27 September 2026, is the kind of derived view a data team would otherwise have to build, maintain and validate itself.<\/p>\n<p>Head-to-head detail sits in <a href=\"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/09\/18\/etf-global-vs-factset\/\">ETF Global vs FactSet: 2026 Compared<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/09\/25\/etf-global-vs-morningstar\/\">ETF Global vs Morningstar: 2026<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/09\/23\/etf-global-vs-refinitiv\/\">ETF Global vs Refinitiv: 2026 Compared<\/a>. For the platforms themselves, see <a href=\"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/09\/07\/factset-review\/\">FactSet Review 2026<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/09\/14\/refinitiv-review\/\">Refinitiv Review 2026<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"what-does-etf-global-cost-in-2026\">What does ETF Global cost in 2026?<\/h2>\n<p>ETF Global does not publish a price on the pages read on 27 September 2026. The site references a free trial and invites prospects to start one. No tier names, seat counts, enterprise minimums or redistribution terms appear on the pages fetched, so this review states no figure for ETFG, from memory or otherwise.<\/p>\n<p>That is not unusual. Opaque pricing is the institutional norm, because the contract is a function of seats, delivery method, redistribution rights and whether the buyer is a manager, an exchange, an advisor or a vendor reselling downstream. The trial is the intended substitute for a price list: use it to test the scanner against a universe you already know well.<\/p>\n<p>AmericanETP publishes instead: $1,500 per year or $150 per month for an individual, and $2,500 per year or $250 per month firm-wide. That is a different commercial model, not a competitive claim, and it exists because a flat-file feed has a narrower scope to negotiate over.<\/p>\n<p>When you do get to an RFP, ask for four things in writing regardless of vendor:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Seat definition, including whether service accounts and automated consumers count as seats.<\/li>\n<li>Redistribution rights, internal and external, and whether derived outputs are restricted.<\/li>\n<li>Archive access, and specifically what happens to historical files you have already received if you terminate.<\/li>\n<li>Notice periods and the price escalation clause at renewal.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>More on the cost question in <a href=\"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/09\/19\/etf-global-pricing\/\">ETF Global Pricing: 2026 Cost Guide<\/a>, and on substitutes in <a href=\"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/09\/17\/best-etf-global-alternatives\/\">Best ETF Global Alternatives 2026<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"reviewing-global-and-thematic-etfs-yourself-with-constituent-data\">Reviewing global and thematic ETFs yourself with constituent data<\/h2>\n<p>If your actual question is whether a specific global or thematic fund is worth owning, holdings files answer it better than any fact sheet, because they expose what the marketing name conceals. Thematic labels are a taxonomy imposed on a portfolio, and the portfolio is the only thing that generates returns.<\/p>\n<p>Four analyses do most of the work, and all four run on constituent files:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Overlap.<\/strong> Join two funds on identifier and sum the minimum of the two weights. Two &quot;distinct&quot; theme funds with 40 per cent weighted overlap are one position, not a diversified pair. Adjacent technology themes are the usual place to check first, and the only way to know for a given pair is to run the join on the current files rather than to infer it from the fund names.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Concentration.<\/strong> Sum the top ten weights and track the number over time. A fund whose top ten has drifted from 30 to 55 per cent has changed its risk profile without changing its prospectus.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Sector and geographic drift.<\/strong> Classify holdings and compare the same fund&#39;s distribution quarter over quarter. A single constituent that runs hard can reweight a concentrated portfolio enough to move its sector profile between two rebalances, and whether that shows up at all depends on the classification scheme you apply. Our <a href=\"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/2026\/08\/31\/etf-list-by-sector\/\">ETF List by Sector: 2026 Classification Guide<\/a> covers how classification choices change the answer.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Leverage and structure flags.<\/strong> A fundamentals file carrying leverage and constituent counts prevents a leveraged or inverse product being screened as if it were a plain index tracker. AmericanETP&#39;s fundamentals file includes the ETF description, leverage and constituent counts.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Broad-market global funds such as iShares Global 100 need less forensic work, because the concentration risk is visible at the index level. The specialist and thematic end is where holdings-level review earns its cost, and where a score alone will not tell you that two of your positions are the same trade.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"verdict-where-etf-global-fits-and-where-it-does-not\">Verdict: where ETF Global fits and where it does not<\/h2>\n<p>By use case, based on what each product type is structurally able to deliver:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Fund selection and due diligence.<\/strong> ETF Global fits well. Reason not to buy: you are accepting an undisclosed weighting scheme, and if your compliance process requires you to explain a methodology you cannot see, that is a problem.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Risk and exposure monitoring.<\/strong> ETF Global fits, particularly given the reverse-lookup view of aggregate ETF ownership described on its site. Reason not to buy: if you need look-through at position level into your own book, you still need constituent rows.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Quant research pipelines.<\/strong> Constituent files fit; ratings do not. You need point-in-time membership, stable identifiers and an archive, which is why the July 2009 history and FIGI coverage matter more here than any analytic.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Fintech display data.<\/strong> Constituent files fit. Reason not to buy raw files: you inherit the ingestion, validation and uptime work, and you must confirm redistribution rights before a single row reaches an end user.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Index and product construction.<\/strong> Constituent files fit, with archive depth as the binding constraint.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>AmericanETP&#39;s own limits are worth stating plainly. The product is flat CSV delivered on a schedule, over FTP or direct download, which assumes you have engineering capacity to load and validate it. There is no ratings layer, no screener, no hosted interface and no analyst commentary: if you want a score that tells you which fund is better, this is the wrong purchase and ETF Global is a more sensible starting point. The company has been producing constituent data since the 1990s, originally as MasterDATA, which explains the archive depth and also the file-first design.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"faq\">FAQ<\/h2>\n<h3 id=\"which-global-etf-is-the-best\">Which global ETF is the best?<\/h3>\n<p>There is no single best global ETF, and any answer depends on the mandate, domicile, tax treatment and cost tolerance of the holder. The retail comparison sites are the right place for that question: justETF&#39;s world ETF guide states that 18 ETFs are currently available for broad worldwide equity exposure (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.justetf.com\">justetf.com<\/a>, read 27 September 2026). For a professional review, the deciding evidence is the holdings file, not the ranking: check overlap, top-ten concentration and index methodology before you compare expense ratios.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"should-i-invest-in-global-etfs\">Should I invest in global ETFs?<\/h3>\n<p>That is an allocation decision, not a data question, and this review does not make investment recommendations. What data can tell you is what a global fund actually holds: a broad world index is typically dominated by large US names, so &quot;global&quot; in the fund name and &quot;diversified by geography&quot; in the portfolio are not the same claim. Run the country and sector weights from the constituent file before you rely on the label.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"what-did-warren-buffett-say-about-etfs-and-index-funds\">What did Warren Buffett say about ETFs and index funds?<\/h3>\n<p>Buffett&#39;s advocacy of low-cost index funds is widely quoted, most often from his Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letters and from the terms of his 2007 wager against a basket of hedge funds. No primary source for the exact wording was available when this article was written, so no quotation is reproduced here rather than risk a misattributed sentence. If you need the exact language, read the shareholder letters directly on Berkshire&#39;s own site.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"does-etf-global-provide-full-daily-etf-holdings-data\">Does ETF Global provide full daily ETF holdings data?<\/h3>\n<p>The pages on etfg.com read on 27 September 2026 describe risk and reward ratings, exposures, detailed analysis and a reverse-lookup showing which ETFs own a given equity, all updated daily. They do not publish a specification for full constituent file delivery, including format, identifier coverage, cut-off time or history depth. If complete daily holdings files are your requirement, ask ETF Global directly and get the specification in writing, because it is not verifiable from the public site.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"is-etf-global-the-same-as-etf-com\">Is ETF Global the same as etf.com?<\/h3>\n<p>No. ETF Global (etfg.com) is an independent research and reference data provider whose site positions it around quantitative models, ratings and the ETFG Scanner. ETF.com is a separate publisher and screening site with different ownership and a different audience. The names are similar enough that procurement documents should always cite the domain rather than the brand.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"how-much-does-etf-global-cost-in-2026\">How much does ETF Global cost in 2026?<\/h3>\n<p>ETF Global does not publish pricing on the pages read on 27 September 2026, and this review declines to estimate a figure. The site references a free trial, which is the practical way to assess fit before a commercial conversation. For comparison, AmericanETP publishes its own pricing at $1,500 per year or $150 per month for an individual and $2,500 per year or $250 per month firm-wide.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"what-is-the-best-etf-database-for-daily-holdings-download\">What is the best ETF database for daily holdings download?<\/h3>\n<p>The best database is the one whose delivery format matches your pipeline and whose archive reaches back past your backtest window. Judge candidates on universe breadth, a named daily cut-off time, stable identifiers such as FIGI, point-in-time archives and redistribution rights, in that order. AmericanETP covers 3878 US and global indexes and US-traded ETFs with twice-daily updates, FIGIs in the holdings files and archives back to July 2009, delivered as CSV over FTP or direct download.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>If your evaluation ends with &quot;we need the rows, not the ratings&quot;, start with the file specification and the archive: browse the current <a href=\"\/Downloads\">downloads<\/a> or <a href=\"\/Contact\">get in touch<\/a> about coverage for a specific index list. <a href=\"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/?utm_source=blog-etf-global-review&#038;utm_medium=blog\">See what AmericanETP delivers daily<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>An institutional review of ETF Global (etfg.com) in 2026: what its research models and scanner cover, what they do not, and how it fits a data<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":75,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[9,54,27,48,11,75],"class_list":["post-76","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fundamentals","tag-etf-data","tag-etf-global","tag-etf-holdings","tag-institutional-data","tag-reference-data","tag-vendor-review"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/75"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanetp.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}