This portfolio has only about 1 months 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 Roast mode 🔥

Hyperactive tech rocket portfolio built on one month of luck and a lot of concentrated bets

Report created on May 13, 2026

Risk profile Info

5/7
Growth
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

This portfolio looks like someone started with sensible vanilla index funds and then panic-added every shiny tech and momentum toy they could find. Over 48% in technology plus single-name chips like NVIDIA and TSM means the “diversified” label is working overtime. The structure is basically core S&P plus a pile of thematically similar satellites all pointing at the same growthy corner of the market. With only about a month of history, any attempt to call this a stable pattern is fantasy. Right now it’s a high-octane equity blender: broad funds doing the boring lifting while a handful of spicy side bets try to steal the show.

Growth Info

On paper, the one-month track record looks obscene: turning $1,000 into $1,223 with a fake-looking 660% CAGR. That’s what happens when you annualize a hot few weeks; it’s like judging a marathon by the first 200 meters. The portfolio smoked both the US and global markets over this tiny window, with a slightly higher drawdown than the US market but still very tame. Ten days make up 90% of returns, screaming “lucky streak” more than “repeatable edge.” Past data is useful, but with a month of history, this is basically yesterday’s weather, not a climate report.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection is trying its best with almost no history to work with, so treat those pretty numbers as more vibe than forecast. Simulations point to a median $2,752 from $1,000 over 15 years, but the range runs from “barely above cash” to “lottery ticket that actually hit.” Monte Carlo just replays lots of possible futures based on recent volatility and returns — and your recent returns are wildly unrepresentative. With a portfolio this tech-heavy and momentum-charged, real-world outcomes could be way boomier or bustier than the model suggests. The one honest line here: these projections are not remotely reliable.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    93%
  • No data
    6%

Asset class “diversification” here is basically 93% “stocks go up, right?” and 6% mystery meat labeled “no data.” There’s no meaningful ballast — this thing is almost pure equity beta dressed up with some leverage and themes. If markets wobble, there’s nothing boring and defensive to quietly catch the fall; everything is tied to the same economic engine. For a “growth” label, that’s not shocking, but it does mean the ride will depend entirely on the stock market’s mood. When nearly all risk lives in a single asset class, “moderately diversified” is more of a participation trophy than a description.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    48%
  • Industrials
    9%
  • Financials
    7%
  • Telecommunications
    7%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    6%
  • Health Care
    6%
  • Consumer Staples
    3%
  • Energy
    2%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    2%
  • Basic Materials
    2%
  • Real Estate
    1%
  • Utilities
    1%

Sector-wise, this portfolio is in a committed relationship with technology: 48% in tech plus extra flavor from semis and related names. Other sectors are basically side characters with single-digit roles. This isn’t a balanced cast; it’s a tech superhero movie where everyone else has two lines and no backstory. The risk is simple: when the tech hype cycle cools, the whole portfolio catches the flu at once. With this setup, sector rotation is something that happens to other people. One strong sector bet can pay off big, but it also means there’s nowhere to hide when that sector takes a breather.

Regions Info

  • North America
    79%
  • Asia Emerging
    7%
  • Europe Developed
    4%
  • Asia Developed
    3%

Geography says “America first and second, maybe Asia if we feel spicy.” Roughly 79% in North America with a sprinkle of emerging and developed Asia plus a token bit of Europe isn’t global diversification; it’s a US portfolio with some postcards from abroad. The emerging markets and Asia funds barely move the needle, and they’re even tightly correlated with each other. This kind of home bias means results will track US market fortunes more than global ones, no matter how international some fund names sound. If the US stumbles relative to the rest of the world, this setup politely declines to notice.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    46%
  • Large-cap
    26%
  • Mid-cap
    15%
  • Small-cap
    3%

The market cap breakdown is very “index-core with a growth twist”: nearly half in mega-caps, another quarter in large-caps, and only small scraps in mid and small. For something this aggressive elsewhere, the size profile is oddly conservative — like putting racing tires on a minivan. Very low size exposure means there’s little participation in the more volatile, potentially higher-beta small-cap universe. Instead, big established names dominate the risk story, juiced up by leveraged and thematic wrappers. The result is a portfolio that talks a wild game in sector and factor space but still leans heavily on the corporate giants to do the heavy lifting.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    5.95%
    Part of fund(s):
    • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    Direct holding 5.77%
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
    3.81%
  • Nokia Corp ADR
    2.60%
  • SK Hynix Inc
    1.65%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Roundhill Memory ETF
  • Forgent Power Solutions, Inc.
    1.60%
  • Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
    1.38%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Roundhill Memory ETF
  • Tesla Inc
    0.93%
    Part of fund(s):
    • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    Direct holding 0.89%
  • First American Funds Inc. - Government Obligations Fund
    0.84%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Roundhill Memory ETF
  • UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
    0.82%
  • Amprius Technologies Inc.
    0.58%
  • Top 10 total 20.17%

The look-through data we do have shows a surprisingly direct obsession: NVIDIA at almost 6% total, mostly from a big single-stock stake, and then chips again via TSM and SK Hynix. Overlap is definitely understated since only ETF top 10s are included, but even this partial picture says “semiconductor echo chamber.” Tesla sneaks in both directly and via funds too, a smaller but similar double-dip. With only 25.9% of the portfolio actually covered in this view, the real concentration is probably worse than it looks. This isn’t diversification; it’s multiple ways of betting on the same handful of tech narratives.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Low
Data availability: 37%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 42%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
High
Data availability: 20%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
High
Data availability: 17%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Low
Data availability: 90%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Low
Data availability: 21%

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-wise, the portfolio is loudly shouting “momentum and quality” while whispering “value” and “size” from the back row. High momentum and high quality together mean it’s loaded with fast-rising, profitable darlings — basically paying up for what’s currently winning. Very low size exposure shows almost no interest in smaller companies, so this isn’t some clever small-cap tilt hiding under the hood. Low value and low yield say cheap and income-producing are optional at best. It’s a “buy the winners, ignore the price, hope the music keeps playing” profile. When leadership rotates away from growthy momentum, this setup tends to feel it quickly.

Risk contribution Info

  • Roundhill Memory ETF
    Weight: 6.37%
    16.8%
  • Fidelity 500 Index Fund
    Weight: 21.14%
    12.7%
  • FIDELITY LARGE CAP GROWTH INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS
    Weight: 14.44%
    9.9%
  • ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    Weight: 4.87%
    8.6%
  • Fidelity Select Semiconductors Portfolio
    Weight: 6.49%
    8.3%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 56.4%

Risk contribution exposes who’s really driving the drama, and the Roundhill Memory ETF is the main diva: 6.37% weight but a ridiculous 16.82% of total risk. That’s more than 2.5× its share, so it’s swinging way above its pay grade. ProShares UltraPro S&P500 is another chaos gremlin — under 5% weight, but almost 9% of risk thanks to leverage. The plain vanilla Fidelity 500 index, despite being over 21% of the portfolio, is actually a relatively chill risk contributor. In short, a couple of flashy side positions are hogging the volatility spotlight while the big core funds do the quiet, responsible work.

Redundant positions Info

  • FIDELITY EMERGING ASIA FUND FIDELITY EMERGING ASIA FUND
    FIDELITY EMERGING MARKETS FUND FIDELITY EMERGING MARKETS FUND
    High correlation
  • Fidelity 500 Index Fund
    ProShares UltraPro S&P500
    Fidelity Total Market Index Fund
    High correlation

Correlation here is basically a group of funds all agreeing to move together in slightly different costumes. The S&P 500 index, total market fund, and the leveraged S&P 500 ETF are almost clones in how they behave; one just shouts louder. The emerging markets and emerging Asia funds also dance in lockstep, so holding both isn’t adding much variety, just extra complication. Highly correlated holdings mean that when one zigs, the others mostly zig too — especially in a selloff. On bad days, this portfolio doesn’t really diversify away pain; it just experiences the same idea through multiple products.

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

The efficient frontier chart politely points out that this portfolio is leaving a shocking amount of efficiency on the table. With a Sharpe ratio around 10.9 versus an optimal 21.7 using the exact same ingredients, it’s like building a sports car and then driving it with the parking brake half on. At the current risk level, it sits a huge 143 percentage points below where it could be. In plain English: mixing these same holdings differently could historically have delivered far more return for the same volatility or similar return with a lot less drama. The raw materials aren’t the problem — the recipe is.

Dividends Info

  • FIDELITY EMERGING ASIA FUND FIDELITY EMERGING ASIA FUND 0.20%
  • Fidelity Select Semiconductors Portfolio 10.50%
  • Fidelity Total Market Index Fund 1.00%
  • FIDELITY LARGE CAP GROWTH INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS 0.30%
  • TECHNOLOGY PORTFOLIO TECHNOLOGY PORTFOLIO 8.60%
  • Fidelity 500 Index Fund 1.10%
  • Nokia Corp ADR 0.90%
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 0.70%
  • UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 2.20%
  • ProShares UltraPro S&P500 0.70%
  • MarketDesk Focused U.S. Momentum ETF 0.20%
  • SMART Earnings Growth 30 ETF 0.10%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.51%

Despite a couple of eye-catching yield numbers in individual funds — 10.5% and 8.6% on some tech-heavy pieces — the total portfolio yield limps in around 1.51%. That’s basically “nice, I guess” territory and not exactly a cash-flow machine. Those headline double-digit yields often come with strings attached, like concentrated sector bets or structural quirks, not free money. Meanwhile, broad core holdings and growth funds are doing what they do best: focusing on price appreciation over payouts. Overall, this portfolio clearly cares more about chasing capital gains than collecting steady income; dividends are more of a side effect than a strategy.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • FIDELITY EMERGING MARKETS FUND FIDELITY EMERGING MARKETS FUND 0.86%
  • FIDELITY EMERGING ASIA FUND FIDELITY EMERGING ASIA FUND 1.03%
  • Fidelity Select Semiconductors Portfolio 0.60%
  • Fidelity Total Market Index Fund 0.02%
  • FIDELITY LARGE CAP GROWTH INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM CLASS 0.04%
  • TECHNOLOGY PORTFOLIO TECHNOLOGY PORTFOLIO 0.61%
  • Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.02%
  • ProShares UltraPro S&P500 0.92%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.18%

Cost-wise, the portfolio is actually pretty reasonable overall with a blended TER around 0.18%. That’s what happens when big allocations sit in dirt-cheap index funds at 0.02–0.04%, dragging down the damage done by the pricier emerging markets, tech, and leveraged products. Those high-fee outliers — 0.86%, 1.03%, 0.92% — are basically premium toppings on an otherwise budget pizza. You’re not being completely fleeced, but some slices are definitely charging restaurant prices for street food. Still, given how spicy the risk profile is, it’s almost impressive the fee bill isn’t worse. Someone at least clicked “low cost” a few times on purpose.

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?

FMTM vs SGRT DRAM vs SOXQ DRAM vs QQQM DRAM vs SPMO

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