This portfolio has only about 1.6 years of historical data, based on the youngest asset in the portfolio. Some metrics, projections, and AI insights may be less reliable and should be interpreted with caution.
Get this analysis for your own portfolio Paste your holdings — the first report is free and takes about a minute. Analyze mine

High income focused balanced portfolio with strong quality tilt and concentrated risk drivers

Report created on Apr 8, 2026

Risk profile Info

4/7
Balanced
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

3/5
Moderately Diversified
Less diversification More diversification
Curious how your own portfolio scores? Same analysis, your holdings. First report free — no card needed. Analyze mine

Positions

The portfolio is built mainly from stock-heavy funds, plus a few individual high‑yield names. A target‑date fund and an equity premium income ETF together make up over half the allocation, giving a core that mixes growth, bonds, and option-based income strategies. Ares Capital and a small-cap value ETF are the next biggest pieces, so a handful of holdings drive most of the behavior. Because history is only about 1.6 years, it’s hard to say if this blend will behave the same way over a full market cycle. In general, relying on a few large positions can be efficient, but it also means changes in those holdings will be very noticeable.

Growth Info

Over roughly 1.6 years, $1,000 grew to about $1,178, which translates to a 10.62% compound annual growth rate (CAGR — a “per year on average” growth speed). That trailed both the US and global market benchmarks, which returned 12.51% and 14.74% respectively, but the portfolio’s max drawdown of -16.88% was slightly milder than the US market’s worst drop. Only five days made up 90% of total gains, showing returns were quite lumpy. With such a short sample, these figures are more like a “first impression” than a pattern; they shouldn’t be treated as proof that the portfolio will always lag or protect in the same way.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection takes the last 1.6 years of returns and volatility, then simulates 1,000 possible 15‑year paths by randomly “replaying” similar ups and downs. It’s like running alternate histories to see a range instead of a single guess. The median outcome turns $1,000 into about $2,691, with a wide possible range from roughly $938 to $7,172. That spread shows how uncertain markets can be. Because the input data set is so short, these results are especially fragile — the period may not include recessions or rate cycles you’d expect over 15 years. Treat these numbers as rough scenario planning, not as a forecast you can rely on.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    94%
  • Not classified
    4%
  • Bonds
    3%

Roughly 94% in stocks, 3% in bonds, and 4% unclassified makes this a clearly equity‑dominated portfolio. That’s more aggressive than a classic “balanced” mix, which often has closer to 40% in bonds to smooth out volatility. The small bond slice likely sits inside the target‑date fund, which gradually shifts more defensive over time but is still stock‑tilted today. Being so equity heavy can help long‑term growth but usually comes with larger swings, especially during sharp market downturns. With such limited history, the portfolio hasn’t yet been tested through a full severe bear market, so real‑world downside could be more intense than the performance chart suggests.

Sectors Info

  • Financials
    32%
  • Technology
    16%
  • Industrials
    11%
  • Health Care
    7%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    7%
  • Energy
    6%
  • Telecommunications
    6%
  • Consumer Staples
    5%
  • Basic Materials
    3%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    3%
  • Utilities
    2%
  • Real Estate
    2%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Sector exposure leans heavily toward financials at about 32%, with technology, industrials, and health care following behind and the rest spread more thinly. Compared with broad market benchmarks, that’s a noticeable overweight in financials and a more modest slice in tech. A financials tilt often reflects high dividend payers and income strategies, which fits the portfolio’s yield focus. The flip side is that it can be more sensitive to credit conditions, interest rates, and funding stress. If one major sector dominates, performance may zig and zag with that sector’s specific cycle rather than the broader economy, so it’s wise to watch how that part behaves in different rate environments.

Regions Info

  • North America
    87%
  • Europe Developed
    6%
  • Asia Developed
    2%
  • Asia Emerging
    2%
  • Japan
    2%
  • Latin America
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Geographically, about 87% is tied to North America, with relatively small allocations to Europe, Asia, Japan, and Latin America. That’s higher US exposure than global market indices, which typically give the US something like 60% of the weight. A home‑bias like this is common and has worked well in recent years, but it does link your outcomes heavily to one economy, one central bank, and mainly one currency. The modest non‑US pieces provide some diversification, yet they’re unlikely to fully offset a major US‑centric downturn. With only 1.6 years of data, you haven’t really seen how this concentration behaves across different global cycles.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    41%
  • Mega-cap
    22%
  • Mid-cap
    12%
  • Small-cap
    11%
  • Micro-cap
    8%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

The spread across company sizes is fairly broad: mega and large caps together make up just over 60%, while mid, small, and micro caps contribute nearly 30%. That’s more tilted toward smaller companies than a typical broad market index, which is usually dominated by mega and large caps. Smaller businesses can offer higher long‑term growth potential but tend to be bumpier ride‑wise, especially during economic slowdowns or liquidity shocks. The small-cap value ETF and certain income names are likely driving this effect. Over a full cycle, this could mean stronger returns when smaller companies thrive, but sharper drops when investors flee to safety — something the short track record doesn’t fully reveal yet.

True holdings Info

  • Ares Capital Corporation
    18.84%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    0.53%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
    0.53%
    Part of fund(s):
    • TappAlpha SPY Growth & Daily Income ETF
  • Walmart Inc. Common Stock
    0.51%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
  • Apple Inc
    0.47%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Johnson & Johnson
    0.45%
    Part of fund(s):
    • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
  • Ross Stores Inc
    0.45%
    Part of fund(s):
    • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
  • Howmet Aerospace Inc
    0.43%
    Part of fund(s):
    • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
  • Nextera Energy Inc
    0.43%
    Part of fund(s):
    • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
  • EOG Resources Inc
    0.43%
    Part of fund(s):
    • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
  • Top 10 total 23.06%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Looking through to the top holdings of the ETFs, only about 28% of the total portfolio is covered, so overlap is likely understated. Still, you can see some familiar big names like NVIDIA, Apple, Walmart, and Johnson & Johnson appearing via multiple funds, which introduces some hidden concentration in these giants even if each slice is small. Ares Capital stands out as a direct position with no ETF duplication, so its impact is more straightforward. Because most ETF holdings beyond the top ten aren’t captured, the unseen overlap could be meaningful. It’s worth remembering that diversification across fund tickers doesn’t always equal diversification across underlying companies.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
High
Data availability: 41%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Low
Data availability: 69%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 24%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Very high
Data availability: 19%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
High
Data availability: 100%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
High
Data availability: 68%

Factor exposures are estimated using statistical models based on historical data and measure systematic (market-relative) tilts, not absolute portfolio characteristics. Results may vary depending on the analysis period, data availability, and currency of the underlying assets.

Factor exposure shows very high quality and high low‑volatility tilts, alongside strong value and yield. Factors are like underlying “personality traits” — quality means stronger balance sheets and profitability, low volatility means historically steadier price moves, and value/yield highlight cheaper stocks and higher dividends. This combination suggests a defensive, income‑oriented style that tries to get paid while avoiding the most speculative names. In calm or gently rising markets, that can feel comfortable and consistent. In roaring growth-led rallies, it may lag flashier segments. With only a short history, you haven’t yet seen how these tilts behave in a deep recession or in an explosive tech-driven bull market.

Risk contribution Info

  • FIDELITY FREEDOM BLEND 2055 FUND
    Weight: 31.34%
    29.7%
  • Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF
    Weight: 16.69%
    22.2%
  • Ares Capital Corporation
    Weight: 18.84%
    21.1%
  • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF
    Weight: 25.86%
    18.8%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    Weight: 4.14%
    5.2%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 96.9%

Risk contribution looks at how much each holding adds to total volatility, which can differ a lot from its weight — like a loud instrument dominating an orchestra. The top three holdings account for about 73% of portfolio risk, with Avantis Small Cap Value and Ares Capital punching above their weight. The equity premium income ETF, despite a large allocation, contributes proportionally less risk, hinting that its options-based income strategy may dampen swings. This structure is efficient but concentrated: if a small-cap value slump or a credit event hits Ares Capital, the impact could be outsized. Periodic position sizing can help keep any single driver from steering the whole ship.

Redundant positions Info

  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF
    High correlation

The correlation data shows that the Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF, Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF, and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF move almost identically. Correlation just means how often two assets move together; highly correlated ones offer less diversification when markets get rough. In this case, those three are all small weights, so the redundancy isn’t a big problem, but it does mean you’re not adding much new behavior by holding all of them. The real diversification seems to come from the mix of income strategies, small-cap value, and the target-date fund, rather than between these highly similar large‑cap US equity slices.

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.

Open the Portfolio Builder Reshape your holdings and watch every metric recalculate live. Try it

On the risk–return chart, the current portfolio has a Sharpe ratio of 0.5, meaning the extra return per unit of risk (after cash) is modest. The efficient frontier, built using only your existing holdings, shows both a higher‑Sharpe optimal mix and a lower‑risk minimum‑variance mix. At your current risk level, you sit about 11 percentage points below that frontier, so the same ingredients could theoretically be rearranged for better risk‑adjusted returns. Because all inputs are based on just 1.6 years of data, the exact numbers are shaky. But the broad message is clear: there’s room to fine‑tune weights if you want either smoother rides or more efficient growth from the same lineup.

Dividends Info

  • Ares Capital Corporation 10.60%
  • Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 1.40%
  • FIDELITY FREEDOM BLEND 2055 FUND 2.40%
  • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF 8.50%
  • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF 8.30%
  • MPLX LP 7.30%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
  • TappAlpha SPY Growth & Daily Income ETF 15.10%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 5.29%

The overall dividend yield around 5.29% is well above broad equity market averages, driven mainly by Ares Capital, the equity premium income ETFs, MPLX, and the TappAlpha fund. Dividends are cash payments that can provide a steady income stream and cushion returns when prices go sideways. However, very high yields can signal higher underlying risk, since companies or funds may be taking on more leverage or credit exposure to generate that income. Over just 1.6 years, these payouts have looked attractive, but dividend policies and option-income strategies can change. It’s important to view the yield as part of total return, not as something guaranteed or risk‑free.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 0.25%
  • FIDELITY FREEDOM BLEND 2055 FUND 0.47%
  • Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Core Premium Income ETF 0.29%
  • JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF 0.35%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.29%

The weighted ongoing cost (TER) of about 0.29% is impressively reasonable for an actively flavored, income‑oriented mix. The cheapest broad market ETF sits at 0.03%, while the more complex strategies run in the 0.25–0.47% range. Fees are like friction: small differences add up over decades, but under 0.30% overall is a solid place to be, especially given the specialized income and factor tilts you’re getting. Keeping costs this low helps more of the gross return end up in your pocket rather than going to fund managers. Over 15–20 years, that can meaningfully offset the drag from any periods of underperformance relative to benchmarks.

What next?

Ready to invest in this portfolio?

Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.

Select broker

Create your own report?

Analyze your portfolio

Join our community!

Join Discord

Compare your holdings

How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?

AVUV vs SPMO AVDV vs VOO QQQM vs SWPPX DRAM vs QQQM

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