Growth portfolio centered on US technology energy and dividend stocks with moderate diversification
Report created on Apr 28, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
IE iShares Evolved U.S. Technology ETF
IETC - US46431W6488 35.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 25.00% -
XL Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
XLE - US81369Y5069 25.00% -
SC Schwab International Equity ETF
SCHF - US8085248057 7.50% -
VE Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets Index Fund ETF Shares
VEA - US9219438580 7.50%
This portfolio is made up of five stock ETFs, with everything invested in equities. The biggest slice goes to a US technology fund, followed by a US dividend ETF and an energy sector ETF, which together dominate the overall mix. Two smaller developed‑market international funds add an overseas element but in modest sizes. Structurally, this creates a focused portfolio where a handful of themes drive most of the behaviour. That focus makes the portfolio easy to understand, because there are clear “engines” behind returns. It also means changes in technology, energy, and US dividend stocks are likely to have an outsized impact on the total portfolio compared with the smaller international positions.
Growth
From March 2018 to April 2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $3,111, which is a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.15%. CAGR is like your average speed on a road trip, smoothing out all the bumps and traffic jams along the way. This result slightly edges out the US market benchmark and clearly beats the global market benchmark, which returned 11.90% a year. The largest historical drop was about -36% during early 2020, similar in depth to the benchmarks but with a quick recovery in roughly five months. That pattern shows strong upside participation with equity‑like drawdowns, typical of a growth‑oriented, fully stock portfolio. Past performance, though, does not guarantee the future will look the same.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection uses repeated simulations based on historical patterns to explore many possible 15‑year paths for $1,000 invested. Think of it as running the same coin toss game 1,000 times to see the range of outcomes rather than just one guess. The median result lands around $2,739, or an annualized 8.02%, with most simulations falling between roughly $1,778 and $4,109. The very wide full range, from about $899 to $7,651, highlights how uncertain long‑term equity returns can be. About three‑quarters of simulations end positive, but a meaningful minority do not. These numbers are useful as a rough map, but they rely on the past being at least somewhat similar to the future, which is never guaranteed.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of the portfolio is in stocks, with no bonds, cash substitutes, or alternative assets in the mix. That all‑equity structure naturally pushes expected long‑term returns higher than a blended stock‑bond mix, but at the cost of larger short‑term swings. Diversification here comes from holding several different equity styles and regions, not from mixing in other asset classes. Compared with a typical broad “balanced” allocation, this is much more growth‑oriented. The absence of bonds or cash means there is little natural buffer during broad equity sell‑offs; the portfolio tends to move with stock markets rather than smoothing out volatility. For someone comparing portfolios, that all‑stock design is one of the defining features of how this one behaves over time.
Sectors
- Technology 34%
- Energy 30%
- Financials 7%
- Health Care 6%
- Industrials 6%
- Consumer Staples 6%
- Telecommunications 5%
- Consumer Discretionary 4%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Real Estate 1%
- Utilities 1%
Sector exposure is dominated by technology at about 34% and energy at roughly 30%, with the remainder spread across financials, health care, industrials, consumer sectors, and smaller slices of other areas. That’s a much heavier tilt toward technology and energy than broad market indices, which typically spread more evenly across sectors. Concentrated sector bets can amplify returns when those areas are in favour, but also lead to sharper swings when sentiment turns or when policies, regulations, or commodity prices move against them. The presence of multiple other sectors, even at smaller weights, still provides some cross‑industry diversification. As a whole, though, this portfolio’s day‑to‑day movements will likely feel closely tied to how technology and energy companies are doing.
Regions
- North America 87%
- Europe Developed 7%
- Japan 3%
- Asia Developed 2%
- Australasia 1%
Geographically, the portfolio is very US‑centric, with around 87% in North America and the rest scattered across developed markets such as Europe, Japan, and other Asia‑Pacific regions. This US tilt is stronger than global market benchmarks, where the US is large but not as dominant as in this portfolio. A high home‑country weight can feel familiar and has historically benefited from strong US market performance, which has been reflected in past returns here. The trade‑off is that economic, political, or currency shocks specific to the US will influence the portfolio more than a globally balanced mix. The international funds broaden the opportunity set a bit, but they are too small to offset the clear primary exposure to the US market.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 47%
- Mega-cap 28%
- Mid-cap 22%
- Small-cap 2%
By market capitalization, the portfolio leans heavily toward larger companies: about 75% in mega‑ and large‑cap stocks, with the remainder mainly in mid‑caps and a small slice of small‑caps. Market cap simply measures a company’s total value on the stock market, and larger firms often have more established businesses and easier access to capital. This tilt lines up fairly well with mainstream equity benchmarks, which are also dominated by big companies. The mid‑cap exposure adds some diversification, since those firms can behave differently from giants during certain cycles. Overall risk from tiny, highly volatile companies is low, given the minimal small‑cap allocation. That structure tends to create behaviour that feels similar to major indices but with the portfolio’s sector and regional twists layered on top.
True holdings
-
XO Exxon Mobil Corp 5.75%
Part of fund(s):- Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
-
CV Chevron Corp 5.28%
Part of fund(s):- Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 4.44%
Part of fund(s):- iShares Evolved U.S. Technology ETF
-
PL Palantir Technologies Inc. 3.47%
Part of fund(s):- iShares Evolved U.S. Technology ETF
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 2.79%
Part of fund(s):- iShares Evolved U.S. Technology ETF
-
CO ConocoPhillips 2.76%
Part of fund(s):- Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 1.72%
Part of fund(s):- iShares Evolved U.S. Technology ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.64%
Part of fund(s):- iShares Evolved U.S. Technology ETF
-
OR Oracle Corporation 1.47%
Part of fund(s):- iShares Evolved U.S. Technology ETF
-
TX Texas Instruments Incorporated 1.40%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
- Top 10 total 30.72%
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, a few names emerge as notable drivers: Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Broadcom, Palantir, NVIDIA, and Microsoft all show up with meaningful combined weights. Some of these appear across multiple funds, which can create “hidden” concentration even when each ETF seems diversified on its own. For example, the energy ETF and dividend ETF both give exposure to large integrated energy companies, magnifying their impact. Only about half of total holdings are visible via top‑10 data, so actual overlap is likely understated. This means individual company events—like earnings surprises, regulatory actions, or sector‑specific news—at these large positions can move the portfolio more than the simple number of funds might suggest.
Factors
Factor exposures are broadly neutral across all six measured dimensions: value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility all sit close to the 50% “market‑like” mark. Factors are like underlying characteristics that help explain why groups of stocks behave the way they do—for example, whether they’re cheaper, faster‑growing, or more stable than average. In this case, the data suggests the portfolio does not strongly lean toward any single factor style. That neutral profile implies behaviour that, from a factor perspective, should be broadly similar to a standard market portfolio, with the main differences instead coming from sector and regional tilts rather than from distinct value, growth, or defensive factor bets.
Risk contribution
-
iShares Evolved U.S. Technology ETF
Weight: 35.00% 37.0% -
Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
Weight: 25.00% 31.5% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 25.00% 19.8% -
Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 7.50% 5.9% -
Schwab International Equity ETF
Weight: 7.50% 5.8%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding adds to the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. Here, the three largest positions by weight—the US tech ETF, energy ETF, and US dividend ETF—make up 85% of assets but about 88% of total risk. The energy ETF is especially notable: at 25% weight, it contributes roughly 32% of risk, meaning it punches above its size in driving volatility. By contrast, the international equity funds contribute less risk than their weights would suggest. This pattern is common when sector‑focused or more volatile holdings sit alongside broader, more diversified funds. It underlines how position size and riskiness together determine which parts of the portfolio really matter.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationSchwab International Equity ETFVanguard FTSE Developed Markets Index Fund ETF Shares
Correlation measures how often investments move together; a value close to 1 means they usually rise and fall in sync. The two international developed‑market ETFs are noted as almost perfectly correlated, meaning they behave very similarly over time. That makes sense, since both target broad developed markets outside the US, just with slightly different index constructions. From a diversification standpoint, holding two highly correlated funds in small sizes doesn’t add much extra independence to portfolio behaviour, though it can still spread issuer or provider risk. Across the rest of the portfolio, correlations are not listed individually, but all‑equity, US‑heavy holdings typically move broadly in the same direction during major global market events.
Risk vs. return
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‑versus‑return chart shows the current portfolio sitting below the efficient frontier by about 1.56 percentage points at its current risk level. The efficient frontier represents the best return historically available for each risk level using only these existing holdings with different weightings. The optimal portfolio point, with the highest Sharpe ratio of 0.84, offers higher expected return and slightly higher risk than the current mix. The minimum‑variance portfolio has lower risk and still a better Sharpe ratio than the current allocation. Since the current portfolio’s Sharpe ratio of 0.62 trails both, the data suggests that simply reweighting among these five ETFs—without adding new ones—could have historically produced a more efficient balance between risk and return.
Dividends
- iShares Evolved U.S. Technology ETF 0.40%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
- Schwab International Equity ETF 3.10%
- Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets Index Fund ETF Shares 2.80%
- Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund 2.60%
- Weighted yield (per year) 2.08%
The blended dividend yield of the portfolio is about 2.08%, combining low payouts from the tech ETF with higher yields from the US dividend, international, and energy funds. Dividend yield is the annual cash payment as a percentage of the current price, like interest on a savings account but not guaranteed. Here, most of the income is generated by the dividend‑focused and international funds, plus the energy ETF, while the tech slice pays relatively little. This mix means total returns historically came more from price growth than from income. Still, a 2‑ish percent yield adds a modest steady component that can help offset volatility slightly, even though market movements will remain the primary driver of the portfolio’s value.
Ongoing product costs
- iShares Evolved U.S. Technology ETF 0.18%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Schwab International Equity ETF 0.06%
- Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund 0.09%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.11%
The portfolio’s total expense ratio (TER), averaged across holdings, is about 0.11% per year, which is impressively low. TER is the ongoing fee charged by funds, expressed as a percentage of your investment each year—like a small annual membership cost. Individual ETF fees range from 0.05% to 0.18%, all in the low‑cost bracket relative to the wider fund universe. Over long periods, keeping costs down leaves more of any returns in the investor’s hands, and this portfolio is strongly aligned with that best practice. With performance driven mainly by markets rather than fees, the low‑cost structure is a clear strength and supports better compounding over time.
What next?
Ready to invest in this portfolio?
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
Create your own report?
Join our community!
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.
Help us improve Insightfolio
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey