One can download the entire MFO dataset, or as you seem to suggest, download a view that includes only a subset of columns (AUM and a whole lot of other, but not all, fields). And one can program a spreadsheet to sort and search based on various criteria. Better yet, import into a database and use its query engine.
Either way, this is circumventing the MFO screeners, not using them. In the picture on the right below, what this is doing is snarfing the box "Data" and attaching your own query engine to it.

One of the things I used to do for 25 years was sell data. Being able to download all of the data for the price of an MFO subscription seems like more of a feature than a circumvention to me. But there were always people that wanted us to do the slicing and dicing for them. So we charged them more.

" time tested magical thinking...". Too funny @wabac. lol
Wasn't there a fund years ago that was very successful in that it assigned placeholder identifiers for each stock, only looking at financial metrics/performance and took the bias of actually knowing which company it was... I guess those who look at Brand strength would disagree but again I recall this was an outperformer

My preference is to slice and dice raw data (annualized returns, ERs, etc.). My ideal would be a screener that let the user write their own queries - to have access to every data column, to be able to use logical connectors. For example:
> $1B in AUM or (> $500M in AUM and < 3 years old).

With MFO premium you could download the dataset that includes something like AUM, and a whole lot of other fields. And then you could apply those criteria in your spreadsheet. If you're already thinking Boolean, you could probably learn how to apply those criteria in a spreadsheet or data query. Am I missing something?

Buy low, sell high. Which funds aren't based on a formula?
I think of the formulas as theses, though not in the academic definition of the word. I would not invest in a fund if the prospectus could not coherently express the rationale, formula, thesis, approach, what have you, behind their choices. I would not invest in a fund that does not apply its formula reasonably consistently.
Are there any funds based on the idea of throwing what would now be virtual darts at virtual stock pages? Been about 40 years since I read Random Walk. I think that's where I got the idea.
If the market is going up, most theses will likely do well enough for you, if you understand why you bought it in the first place. If the market is going down, almost everything looks dreary. But utes and staples, two hoary formulas, did all right for me in 2022.
Should we wave bye-bye to the the Fama-French three factor model? How many times have you heard that small caps and value are dead? None the less, since inception in March of 2008, the formula behind RWJ has outperformed the mighty 500 formula.
I'm no fan of quants. But back in the day they were generally marketed on the notion that they had some secret formula in a black box that they could not share due to something, something, something. In which case, the prospectus might look something like this:

The XYZ fund is firmly rooted in the time-tested principle of magical thinking. We believe that the sponsor can reasonably expect to line it's pockets, and reward shareholders of the sponsor, at the expense of gullible investors.

I try to avoid any strategy based on some “formula”. Many funds do that to some extent. Dividend Aristocrats / Low Volatility Stocks included. I’d include some of the major equity index funds in that category as well, although many here would disagree.
Problem is these approaches make logical sense when first conceived. May run hot for many years or even decades. A lot of money is made. A lot of money flows in thinking they’ve found a safe steady performer. Great if you know when to get out. But the last ones to buy before the approach or scheme stumbles get burned. Worse, they may “buy-down” believing because the same formula worked for so long, the price decline represents a good buying opportunity.
I glean these thoughts from some of the things Howard Marks mentions in “The Most Important Thing.” But they are not meant to represent Marks’ views.

Most fund families allow an investor to open up a new account in a closed fund if they do it by moving shares rather than funding it with dollars. Here, that new account is in a Roth, but it could have been, e.g. a T-IRA funded with 401(k) rollover shares.
One fund company that is a stickler about not opening new accounts in closed funds is Vanguard. Years ago I tried to do a partial Roth conversion of a closed fund. Fortunately, I had already opened a position in the Roth prior to the fund closing. So after only an hour on the phone with them (at least it seemed that long), Vanguard agreed that because I was not opening a new account I could move the shares.
But if I didn't already have that Roth account open, Vanguard would not have let me move the shares to the Roth. I could not open a new account using shares.
Vanguard construes its rules very tightly. Most other families are a little more flexible.

This may be common knowledge, but I recently realized that I could do a partial Roth conversion from a closed fund to expand holdings in it. I’ve been fortunate to own ARTKX in my rollover IRA for many years, from nearly its inception. My Roth IRA was invested with T Rowe Price, which has rather pitiful foreign funds. In trying to figure out how to upgrade the foreign investments in my Roth, it dawned on me that I could try converting a portion of the ARTKX shares in my rollover IRA to my Roth. The conversion worked, so my next step is to sell the TRP fund (PSILX) and invest the proceeds in ARTKX. I’m ashamed that it took me so long to realize this, as PSILX has been a poor performer.

MFO's Basic Screener (aka QuickSearch) is still free!

Yes it is, and it is a fine engine with several post-analysis criteria available (Great Owl, MFO risk,etc.). But just as with M*'s "new and degraded" premium investor screener,only post-analysis criteria are available.
Neither tool provides screens for funds based on annualized returns, though those figures are displayed in the result sets and one can sort them. Nor are other raw (pre-analysis) screening criteria like ER or AUM available.
My preference is to slice and dice raw data (annualized returns, ERs, etc.). My ideal would be a screener that let the user write their own queries - to have access to every data column, to be able to use logical connectors. For example:
> $1B in AUM or (> $500M in AUM and < 3 years old).
M*'s premium fund screener was great at this. It provided access to a plethora of underlying data categories and let you build queries using ands and ors
https://screen.morningstar.com/v2/AdvFunds/data_definition.html?field=Sector+Weightings
After that tool vanished, M*'s basic fund screener was still available for awhile. It was a very weak tool. But it did have a limited ability to screen on a few raw data attributes. Now what?

@msf - great comments; thanks. I checked my RPHYX statement last night, and it confirms what you've stated.
I made a simple calculation when I sold some RPHYX and went to T-Bills; I looked at the average return of RPHYX over the past several years (for sake of argument, let's call it 2.4%) and also looked at the downturn RPHYX had at some point last year (don't recall when exactly, but I think it approached 2%), and decided to sell most of my RPHYX and buy 3-month treasures at my broker.
Another consideration was the need for liquidity (I am expecting needing cash within the next 6 months, didn't want to have to sell any RPHYX at a 2% loss, for example), and the ability to readily flex from 3-months to other investments if I wanted to.

As I wrote above, even taking state income taxes into account, T-bills purchased a year ago didn't beat RPHYX, let alone RPHIX, after taxes. Though the numbers do work out differently if you're in the 32% or higher federal bracket.
There is another tax factor to consider: when are taxes due? Interest from 52 week T-bills purchased at the beginning of January 2023 is not taxed until April 2025. That is, all the income is taxed as 2024 income. RPHIX pays periodic dividends, so divs from Jan 2023, Feb 2023, ..., Dec 2023 are all taxed in April 2024.
That's a point in favor of T-bills assuming you purchased T-bills in 2023 that still haven't matured.
Delving even deeper into tax differences, for 2023 RPHIX had a twelve month distribution yield of 5.08% and a total return of 5.87%. That means that only 5.08% is subject to taxes now. The rest of the return is unrealized appreciation. That isn't taxed this coming April, and might not be taxed for years. And when it is, it will be taxed on the federal level at a cap gains rate.
That's a point in favor of RPHIX.
People had lots of reasons to choose T-bills over RPHYX / RPHIX: I wanted more certainty, I wouldn't make that much less with T-bills because of tax issues, I would have to hold the shares for 60+ days to avoid a short term fee, I wanted to diversify/split my bets, etc. Add to that: I couldn't buy shares because the fund was not open a year ago.
Hindsight tells us what we could have done. What matters is what we can do now. RPHYX / RPHIX has reopened to new investors. So there are even more people facing this conundrum now. :-)

Wifey prefers that I continue to move more from tax-sheltered to taxable.

That sure sounds like a bad idea to me @Crash, unless you are paying taxes now and converting to a Roth.

Truth. :)
But I did not mention that we simply do not pay any Federal tax through the 1040. We have not done so for years, and don't expect to, this coming year. Zero tax due, after deductions. Moving the $$$ to taxable just simplifies things for wifey if the worst should happen to me.
I understand your thinking, completely.

FD thinks we’re all 25 years old and should therefore be positioned for the next 50 years.
(Try 25+25+25+3)
Would he tell his great grandma who’s depending on the money to see her through retirement to throw it all into the S&P?

RiverPark is known here for some of its subadvised funds (RPHIX, RSIIX) and those are in the news here. But the firm itself has had issues with turnovers & AUM losses.
M* on RLSFX
"Co-founder and co-chief investment officer Mitch Rubin departed the firm in November 2022 on the heels of weak performance across the firm’s equity strategies. Meanwhile, RiverPark’s assets under management has declined 35% since December 2020 as outflows across most of its products have been persistent in recent years. As of March 2023, the firm’s AUM was USD 2.4 billion, 70% of which was in its two subadvised funds, including its largest fund, RiverPark Short Term High Yield. According to CEO and co-founder Morty Schaja, the firm intends to draw upon the research resources of equity subadvisor Wedgewood, where the firm owns a roughly 2% minority interest. It will take some time to assess how this collaboration will work and what impact it may have.
Other attributes of the firm are mixed. Across the board, the firm’s mutual fund fees remain high, though that is in part a function of their comparatively small size. But Schaja has invested more than USD 1 million in five of the six funds RiverPark offers, and he has broadened ownership of the firm to include other employees, which often helps retain personnel. Indeed, the firm has shown stability in the investment analyst ranks."
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/rlsfx/parent

Mitch had a couple disastrous years in both absolute and relative terms. The "all offense, all the time" strategy, always risky, sort of imploded and the funds' small asset base shrank. He left both funds (long-only, long-short), and was replaced by Conrad on both. In a singularly terse exchange, the RiverPark folks would only allow that he had moved on from the firm.
Through luck or skill, both funds posted outstanding performances in 2023.

[snip]
Does it seem like a high proportion of ETFs fail to last for more than 5 or 6 years?
Much greater rate of attrition than mutual funds ISTM. Might be wrong.
[snip]

You are not wrong. The attrition rate for ETFs has been high.
"As of Dec. 13, this year’s nearly 500 exchange-traded fund launches have already broken the record set in 2021 (461). The ETF universe is more expansive than ever: Investors can choose from 3,487 ETFs.
There have been 5,067 ETFs brought to market since SPDR S&P 500 ETF SPY launched in 1993.
This means 31% of them have since closed."
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/best-worst-new-etfs-2023

"Simple" question: what do you think will generate better results for Joe average investor during his lifetime...holding up to 5 funds and hardly trading, or using 10+ holdings with more trading?
[snip]

Let's not conflate trading with the number of funds an investor holds.
They're two different topics.
There has been ample research indicating investors who trade frequently often fare poorly.
You may be familiar with the seminal paper titled “Trading is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors” by Brad Barber and Terrance Odean.
Your prior post stated:
"I could never understand why anyone has more than 7-8 funds (they are usually the ones who say, there is no right number). You go over 10 funds and you are over-diversified. What usually happens with over 10 funds? you are not sure and/or you have owned lagging categories for years. You already know that the SP500 beat most funds over 15-20 years so why do you own so many funds? This was my initial start (1995-2000) investing 90+% in VG Total index and the rest in VG growth."
Regardless of your opinion, there isn't an arbitrary number of funds which is optimal for every investor's unique circumstances. A young investor who is risk tolerant and has many years until retirement can reasonably have only a single fund in their portfolio (e.g., Total World Stock Index fund or target-date fund) if they so choose. Many Bogleheads are fond of a three-fund portfolio often comprised of Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSAX), Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund (VTIAX), and Vanguard Total Bond Market Fund (VBTLX). This is a good strategy but it may not be right for everyone. Investors with multiple accounts should probably consider fund availability, optimum asset location, tax consequences, risk tolerance, and personal preferences when constructing their portfolios. These considerations can lead to having more funds than you prescribe. Bottom line - there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.
The S&P 500 performed very well over the trailing 10-year and 15-year periods.
It was a very different story during the "Lost Decade" (2000-2009) when the S&P 500 basically went nowhere.
Would the average investor with a large S&P 500 position have the fortitude to stick with this investment
during the "Lost Decade" or would they have sold before the S&P 500 recovery started?
Wouldn't it have been beneficial to also include foreign stocks and/or investment-grade bonds in the portfolio?

Interesting that no ETFs appear on that comprehensive list @msf listed. That’s what I was searching the web for. I did stumble on 4 or 5 market neutral ETFs that had already closed. And 2 or 3 that were still around.
Does it seem like a high proportion of ETFs fail to last for more than 5 or 6 years? Much greater rate of attrition than mutual funds ISTM. Might be wrong.
GAMNX -16% in 2022 // +39% in 2023. Yup. Sounds market neutral. :)

PRWCX is one of these "exceptions to the rule" where a manager can be great for the long term. I have been recommending it as one of the best "moderate"(not a typical one) allocation funds for over 10 years.

Thanks for the tip FD.
Uhh - So you’ve been recommending a closed fund to your friends for 10 years? Good Grief.

"Simple" question: what do you think will generate better results for Joe average investor during his lifetime...holding up to 5 funds and hardly trading, or using 10+ holdings with more trading?
Investing is never about emotions and feelings, it's all about numbers.
What I do has nothing to do with the above question and why I didn't mention it, but it's amazing how posters would not deal with the above.
Roy, PRWCX is one of these "exceptions to the rule" where a manager can be great for the long term. I have been recommending it as one of the best "moderate"(not a typical one) allocation funds for over 10 years.

+1. @Roy.
*************
Well, yes, I might get cut, but it won't be because I'm trying to catch the knife in mid-air. Just trying to keep things simple. Wifey prefers that I continue to move more from tax-sheltered to taxable. Not so many rules and hoops to jump through, after I'm gone. THAT will be a SLOW process, though. As much as you can depend upon anything, it looks like neither of us is going anywhere permanently for several years, anyhow. (Next birthday= 70. Hers will be age 51.)