From M* support
“Hope you are doing well.
I apologize for the wrong choice of words.
What I meant was that the issue you highlighted as effected all Morningstar users.
As informed this is been taken has a high priority case .
Best regards,”

Timely support for Morningstar products is seriously lacking.
I use their Portfolio X-Ray Tool via my public library system.
The following email was sent to Morningstar support on November 15:
Access to Morningstar Investment Research Center is provided by KCLS.
After holdings are added to Instant X-Ray, the Overview screen is displayed which is normal behavior.
However, the other screen views (Interpreter, Intersection, Asset Class, etc.) are inaccessible.
A pop-up window is displayed to 'Create your account' when clicking these tabs.
I have used Instant X-Ray via KCLS for years and first noticed this issue approximately 2 weeks ago.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Morningstar support response:
I hope all is well. The X-Ray tool is broken.
The login prompt you get when you are using the X-Ray tool is glitch.
We do not have a timeline for fixing this. The products team is hoping before the end of the year. We will reach out to all libraries once this is resolved. Thanks, for your patience and I apologize for the inconvenience.

Using the same data source, compare DODFX's "subpar" - er, miserable - performance to that of another "Gold" rated fund Vanguard Intl Growth:
YTD + 49.8%, 3 YRS +20.2%, 5 YRS +19.4%
Yowza! Dramatically different returns for both "Gold" funds in the same M* category.
"Gold" rated apples are not all "gold."

Props to Miller: He got the call right. But I think the problem with his funds isn’t his financial acumen, which I believe he has, but a structural one. One great John Bogle saying is “Strategy follows structure.” The design of an investment product influences its manager’s strategy. What that means in this case is a high fee fund requires a money manager to take on more risks to beat its benchmark and Miller’s funds have always been high fee. The fee acts as a hurdle the manager must overcome before breaking even with the no fee S&P 500 or now no fee index funds. In Miller’s case his style is to concentrate his portfolio in an eclectic mix of high risk stocks— deep value ones everyone hates and market tech darlings most value managers misunderstand. This strategy works well in bull markets and is like a leveraged play on a strong or recovering economy, but it works terribly in most bear markets and is like a leveraged play on the downside. This could be fine if most investors understood his style, but investors tend to chase performance, buying at the top and selling at the bottom. Concentration only tends to work for most investors in high quality stocks that outperform on the downside and hold their own on the upside, not low quality deep value stocks or small caps that get hammered in sell offs and cause fund investors to panic. Miller would in this regard probably be better off running a hedge fund for sophisticated investors with the wealth and understanding to ride out the very rough patches than a mutual fund for ordinary folk.

Thank you for the education. To confirm, I took the average of the growth (+37.23%) and Value (+25.82%) for 2019 and get an average of +31.5%, which equals the return of the 500 index.

The S&P 500 is designed by committee to be "representative" of the US market. So it is not a collection of the 500 largest companies, though it resembles that list.
Given that the objective of the S&P Committee is to represent the market, to the extent that it meets that objective, your question could be rephrased: is today's market growthy (are most companies, where "most" means more than 50%, growth companies)? Hard to disagree with that.
My point was just that by design, growth index + value index = total index; further, the partitioning is effectively 50/50 so one gets little insight by seeing how many stocks fall where.
Another way to address (ore evade) your question is: essentially by definition cap weighted indexes are (slightly) growth oriented, since they add more weight to companies that have grown faster.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/967411/is-market-cap-weighting-a-momentum-strategy-in-disguise

Anyone who wants to condemn today’s democrats because southern slaveholders were democrats 150 years ago is not really a serious person.

@msf - I've always thought of the S&P 500 as a stock market index that tracks the stocks of the largest 500 U.S. companies. Today's market environment does not lead me to believe that the current list is made up of a 50-50 split growth v. value. You?

@Rbrt - not necessarily would I overweight. Have that plan in the works ahead of time and stick to it. If it doesn't work out then decide if you need a new plan. The whole exercise is meant to take your biases, or the markets, out of the equation. Everything else is either timing or guesswork which may be the same. Just my opinion.
Edited to add: For the record I am primarily a dividend growth investor. I do not own a S&P 500 fund. My portfolio is roughly 50% individual equities, 25% Pimco bond CEF's and 25% assorted other holdings. While this portfolio has and continues to provide more monthly income than I need it really hasn't provided and semblance of massive growth. In the end my comments on the S&P business do not reflect things that I have done.

I see:
VIFAX. VIGAX. VUVLX
M CAP 161.b 223. 50.4
PE. 27.6. 42.4. 16.7
PB. 3.8. 9.2. 2.0
ROE. 19.6. 21.1. 13.0
Also, if you put 10k in growth & 10k in value 3 years ago, you’d be 64% growth & 36% value now. So you would rebalance - but if investing today, would you overweight value? By how much?

For the top 10 holdings in VIFAX, I see 23.1% growth and 5.1% value. Don't think I'll go through all 509 names tonight.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/887210/000110465920137326/tm2038055d13_497.htm
497 1 tm2038055d13_497.htm 497
ABERDEEN INVESTMENT FUNDS
Aberdeen International Sustainable Leaders Fund
(formerly, Aberdeen Select International Equity Fund)
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated December 18, 2020 to the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional
Information, each dated February 28, 2020, as supplemented to date
(the “February 2020 Prospectus and SAI”)
Effective December 1, 2020, the Aberdeen Select International Equity Fund changed its name to the Aberdeen International Sustainable Leaders Fund and changed its principal investment strategies and portfolio managers as set forth in a separate prospectus and statement of additional information dated December 1, 2020 (the “December 2020 Prospectus and SAI”). The Aberdeen International Sustainable Leaders Fund is currently offered pursuant to the December 2020 Prospectus and SAI. All references to, and information with respect to, the Aberdeen Select International Equity Fund are hereby deleted from the February 2020 Prospectus and SAI.
This supplement is dated December 18, 2020.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

So does anyone know the current percentage by market cap that is growth? (In the S&P500)

You can look at - https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/portfolio/vigax
Compared to - https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/portfolio/vuvlx
And - https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/portfolio/vfiax
And tell us what you find.

"As of Dec. 1st DODFX results:
YTD -{3.0%}, 3 years -{0.1%}, 5 years +4.5%. Negative returns for 3 years is "Gold?"!
"Compare that blow out performance to the Category (Foreign Stock Funds):
YTD +7.1%, 3years +3.7%, 5 years +7.3%"
Compare that to the Category (Foreign Large Value Funds):
YTD -{4.1%}, 3 years -{0.7%}, 5 years +3.8%
(My data are from M*'s performance page for the fund, as of month end Nov. 30th. The category performance was calculated by taking the fund's performance and subtracting its category outperformance as given on that page.)
Morningstar stars are given for (risk adjusted) past performance. Gold (and other medal) ratings concern prospective performance. While past performance informs, "past performance does not guarantee future results."
If you want to say that FLV has done lousy over the three years, all well and good. However, medal ratings are relative to peers, and the fund does perform well relative to its peers. At least on an absolute (not risk adjusted) basis.

DODFX is a perfect example of why one should ignore M* recs. Lousy picks. DODFX still has as of today M* "Gold" status. I can think of another color - it ain't shiny metal.
As of Dec. 1st DODFX results:
YTD -{3.0%}, 3 years -{0.1%}, 5 years +4.5%. Negative returns for 3 years is "Gold?"!
Compare that blow out performance to the Category (Foreign Stock Funds):
YTD +7.1%, 3years +3.7%, 5 years +7.3%
Translated: avoid, its a bum fund, you lost money for years. Of course, your mileage may differ should you choose to fork over hard earned cash today. Much better options elsewhere...Vanguard Intl Growth or Fidelity Intl Discovery perhaps?

So does anyone know the current percentage by market cap that is growth? (In the S&P500)

If I were to own a S&P 500 fund I would be inclined to split it into a growth index and a value index and rebalance as necessary or so inclined.

I think Mr Bolin explores a variation of this idea here: https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/57398/building-downside-protection-for-retirees#latest
I could see rather than a simple stock / bond rebalance, someone could do a growth / value rebalance. Might as well throw in small cap also.

@SomeoneWhoIsNotWhoHeClaimsToBe You should be ashamed for using Honest Abe Lincoln's face on your post. And your forebears if they were truly coal miners and knew what's what would know there isn't a more significant union busting, labor hating party in the U.S. today than the GOP. No new coal jobs were create during Trump's presidency and in fact they hit an all-time low at the end of 2019--https://spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/us-coal-mining-employment-hits-new-low-at-the-end-of-2019-may-go-lower-in-2020-57173047 Coal is a product that is killing the planet anyway. Instead of saving those 50,000 remaining coal mining jobs, the federal and state governments should provide financial support and re-training for those workers and give them first crack at green jobs under the Green New Deal, which would create a lot more than 50,000 jobs if the GOP and Dixiecrats or today's Blue Dog Dems weren't hell bent on killing it by any means necessary.

Dec 18th Episode - Part 2 with Ed Hyman

"DODFX is a mediocre FLV stock fund that has only kept pace with IC+ bond fund DODIX for the past ten years.
ISTM that you're rolling up multiple factors into a single number. Over the past ten years, DODFX has turned in four star performance. It is rated three stars for risk adjusted performance.
While it's more than fair to consider risk since that's @hank's main concern here, it's not quite fair to mix raw performance and risk adjusted performance in the same sentence: "mediocre" (risk-adjusted) and "kept pace" (raw performance).
We can take a closer look at those ten year performances. DODFX has outperformed its category by an average of 1.03% over the past decade (through Sept. 18, per M*). DODIX has outperformed its category by 0.40% over the past decade. Based on these figures, which is the mediocre fund?
Sure, DODIX has kept pace with DODFX. But that's because a mediocre core plus fund has outpaced a mediocre FLV fund over a decade, 4.26% to 3.95%.
"What about BND vs RBIN??"
Okay, what about it? Seriously.
Is it your thesis that a portfolio consisting of these two funds and others shouldn't be periodically rebalanced? Because current rebalancing would effectively take some money from BND and add it to RBIN. Of course that would be within the larger scope of an entire portfolio.
There are certainly many people who think rebalancing is overrated. I had asked the same question: "should [we] take money out of cash and bet it on foreign large cap value funds [that have lost value]?"
To put it another way: should rebalancing be a one-way street? Should we move money out of (long term) riskier categories into (long term) less risky categories when the former have done well, but we shouldn't rebalance the other way? That would mean we don't move money from bonds to stocks even though core plus bond have had a better ten year run (even the mediocre ones) than foreign large value funds.