This portfolio is a pure equity mix made up entirely of factor-focused ETFs, with no bonds or cash included in the allocation. Around half the weight sits in large US-focused momentum and quality funds, while the rest spreads across international, small cap, and value-tilted strategies. The overall risk label lands in a “balanced” bucket with a 4/7 risk score, but structurally it behaves like an all‑stock portfolio, which naturally brings larger ups and downs than mixes that include bonds. The moderate diversification score reflects that everything is in one asset class, even though there is variety across regions, sizes, and factor styles within equities.
From late 2021 to mid‑2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $2,072, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 16.96%. CAGR is like the “average speed” of growth per year over the whole journey. This beat both the US market (14.50%) and global market (12.45%) over the same period. The max drawdown, or deepest peak‑to‑trough fall, was about ‑24.5%, similar to the US market and slightly milder than the global benchmark. It took roughly 15 months to recover from that drop. Most gains came from just 24 key days, which highlights how a handful of strong sessions can drive a big part of long‑term equity returns.
The Monte Carlo projection looks at many possible future paths by reshuffling and simulating returns based on historical patterns. Think of it as running 1,000 “what if” market futures using the same dice that history rolled. The median outcome after 15 years turns $1,000 into about $2,705, or roughly 7.9% annualized across all simulations. The middle half of results ranges between about $1,810 and $4,048, while the broad 5–95% band stretches from about break‑even to strong growth. These numbers don’t forecast a single future; they just show a range of plausible scenarios. As always, past data can’t guarantee what happens next, especially for a factor‑tilted equity portfolio.
All of the portfolio is invested in stocks, with 0% in bonds, cash, or alternative assets. That makes the asset‑class picture very simple: full participation in equity market growth and full exposure to equity‑style downturns. Compared with broad “balanced” mixes that combine stocks and bonds, this structure generally offers higher long‑term return potential at the cost of larger and more frequent swings. Diversification still exists within equities, but it does not cushion market‑wide shocks the way high‑quality bonds or cash can. The structure aligns more closely with an aggressive equity stance than with a multi‑asset blend, even though the reported risk score is mid‑range.
Sector exposure is distributed across the economy, with notable tilts. Technology stands out as the largest slice at 26%, followed by Industrials at 20% and Financials at 15%. The remaining weight is spread more evenly across consumer, materials, health care, energy, staples, telecom, utilities, and real estate, each in single‑digit percentages. This mix looks more diversified than a portfolio dominated by a single industry, yet the elevated technology share means results can be sensitive to innovation cycles and interest‑rate shifts. Momentum and quality screens can also amplify exposure to sectors enjoying strong trends, which may help in boom periods but can reverse quickly if leadership rotates.
Geographically, the portfolio is heavily anchored in North America at 71%, with the remainder spread across developed Europe, Japan, other developed Asia, emerging Asia, Australasia, Latin America, and Africa/Middle East. This is more US‑tilted than the global stock market, where North America is significant but not quite this dominant. The presence of international large and small caps plus emerging markets meaningfully broadens the opportunity set beyond a single region, which supports diversification when global leadership changes. At the same time, the strong North American emphasis means portfolio behavior will still track US market conditions and policy decisions quite closely most of the time.
Market capitalization is well spread across company sizes: about 53% in mega and large caps combined, 22% in mid caps, 18% in small caps, and a notable 6% in micro caps. This is a broader size range than standard large‑cap indices, which barely touch micro caps. Larger companies often bring more stability and liquidity, while smaller and micro‑cap firms can offer higher growth potential with more pronounced volatility. The significant small and micro‑cap slice fits with the portfolio’s factor tilts toward size and value. It also means day‑to‑day swings may be stronger than in a purely large‑cap portfolio, especially during stress periods when smaller names can move sharply.
Looking through ETF top‑10 holdings, coverage is about a third of total portfolio value, so overlap is only partially visible. Within that slice, several technology names recur: Micron, NVIDIA, Broadcom, Lam Research, and AMD all show up, alongside Alphabet’s share classes, Apple, Johnson & Johnson, and Exxon Mobil. Micron alone accounts for about 2.8% of the overall portfolio through multiple funds. This overlap indicates some hidden concentration in a handful of large growth and tech‑related stocks, even though they don’t appear as direct single‑stock positions. Because only top‑10 ETF holdings are counted, true overlap is likely somewhat higher than shown, especially in broad momentum and quality funds.
Factor exposure is a defining feature here. Value, size, and momentum all show high tilts, meaning the portfolio leans toward cheaper stocks, smaller companies, and names with strong recent performance trends. Factor exposure is like seeing the recipe behind a dish: these three “ingredients” can drive differences from the broad market. High value and size exposure often help when cheaper and smaller stocks outperform, but they can lag during mega‑cap growth leadership. A strong momentum tilt typically benefits in trending markets but may suffer when leadership flips suddenly. Quality, yield, and low volatility sit around neutral, so the most distinctive behavior is likely to come from the value‑small‑momentum combination.
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weight. The largest position, the S&P 500 Momentum ETF at 25%, contributes about 26% of total risk, essentially in line with its size. The S&P MidCap Momentum and US Small Cap Value ETFs each punch a bit above their weights, with risk/weight ratios over 1.1, reflecting higher volatility in mid and small caps. In contrast, the international large‑cap ETF contributes less risk than its 12% weight, acting as a somewhat stabilizing piece. Overall, the top three positions make up just over half of total portfolio risk, a moderate but noticeable concentration.
Correlation looks at how positions move together. When two holdings are highly correlated, they tend to rise and fall at the same time, which can reduce the benefit of holding both. In this portfolio, the international small‑cap value ETF and the international large‑cap ETF move almost identically based on historical data. That makes sense because they share the same general regions and value style, differing mainly in company size. While both still add breadth beyond domestic holdings, the very high correlation means they behave more like variations of a single theme than fully independent return drivers, especially during broad international market rallies or sell‑offs.
This chart shows the Efficient Frontier, calculated using your current assets with different allocation combinations. It highlights the best balance between risk and return based on historical data. "Efficient" portfolios maximize returns for a given risk or minimize risk for a given return. Portfolios below the curve are less efficient. This is informational and not a recommendation to buy or sell any assets.
Click on the colored dots to explore allocations.
The risk‑return chart shows the current portfolio sitting below the efficient frontier, which is the curve of best achievable returns for each risk level using these same holdings in different mixes. The Sharpe ratio, a measure of return per unit of risk above the risk‑free rate, is 0.77 for the current allocation. The optimal mix on this frontier reaches a Sharpe of 1.13 with somewhat higher expected return and slightly higher volatility, while the minimum‑variance version has lower risk and a Sharpe of 0.88. Being about 3 percentage points below the frontier suggests that a different weighting of the existing ETFs could potentially improve risk‑adjusted outcomes without changing the lineup.
The overall dividend yield of about 1.44% is relatively modest, especially compared with higher‑yielding income strategies. Yield is simply the annual cash payouts as a percentage of the portfolio’s value. Here, income is mostly a side effect rather than the main driver, with some international value and developed momentum funds offering yields around 2–3.6%, while US momentum and quality holdings sit closer to or below 1%. For a factor‑driven equity portfolio focused on value, size, and momentum, this lower yield profile is common. Most of the expected return historically has come from price movement rather than cash distributions.
The weighted average ongoing fee (TER) across these ETFs is about 0.23% per year, which is quite competitive for an active, factor‑tilted equity mix. TER, or total expense ratio, is the annual cost charged by funds to cover management and operations, taken directly out of returns. Individual ETF fees range from 0.13% to 0.39%, reflecting the added complexity of small‑cap, value, and momentum strategies compared with plain broad‑market trackers. Over long periods, keeping costs reasonably low helps more of any gross performance show up in your net results. In this case, expenses are impressively restrained given the specialized nature of the underlying strategies.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
The information provided on this platform is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as financial or investment advice. Insightfolio does not provide investment advice, personalized recommendations, or guidance regarding the purchase, holding, or sale of financial assets. The tools and content are intended for educational purposes only and are not tailored to individual circumstances, financial needs, or objectives.
Insightfolio assumes no liability for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information presented. Users are solely responsible for verifying the information and making independent decisions based on their own research and careful consideration. Use of the platform should not replace consultation with qualified financial professionals.
Investments involve risks. Users should be aware that the value of investments may fluctuate and that past performance is not an indicator of future results. Investment decisions should be based on personal financial goals, risk tolerance, and independent evaluation of relevant information.
Insightfolio does not endorse or guarantee the suitability of any particular financial product, security, or strategy. Any projections, forecasts, or hypothetical scenarios presented on the platform are for illustrative purposes only and are not guarantees of future outcomes.
By accessing the services, information, or content offered by Insightfolio, users acknowledge and agree to these terms of the disclaimer. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not use our platform.
Instrument logos provided by Elbstream.
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey