Concentrated US growth and small value blend with gold ballast and strong historic performance

Report created on Apr 9, 2026

Risk profile

  • Secure
    Speculative

The risk profile, derived from past market volatility, reflects the level of risk the portfolio is exposed to. This assessment helps align your investments with your financial goals and comfort with market fluctuations.

Diversification profile

  • Focused
    Diversified

The diversification assessment evaluates the spread of investments across asset classes, regions, and sectors. This ensures a balanced mix, reducing risk and maximizing returns by not concentrating in any single area.

Positions

The portfolio is built from just three positions: two equity ETFs and a physical gold ETC. Around three-quarters is in shares, split fairly evenly between a Nasdaq-focused growth fund and a US small-cap value fund. The remaining quarter sits in gold, which is classed as “other” rather than stocks. This kind of simple structure makes it easy to understand what’s driving returns, but it also means each position has a big impact. A takeaway here is that with so few holdings, any change to one ETF or the gold allocation meaningfully shifts the overall risk and behaviour.

Growth Info

Historically, the portfolio turned £1,000 into about £4,386 over ten years, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.93%. CAGR is like your average speed over a long road trip, smoothing out bumps along the way. This beat both the US market and the global market by a comfortable margin. The worst drop, a max drawdown of about -22% during early 2020, was shallower than the benchmarks’ falls. That combination of higher return with slightly smaller worst-case dip is very positive, though it’s vital to remember that past performance isn’t a guarantee of similar future results.

Projection Info

The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which runs 1,000 different “what if” paths based on historical behaviour and volatility. Think of it as re-rolling the last decade’s dice in many different orders to see a range of possible futures. Over 15 years, the median outcome grows £1,000 to around £2,520, with most paths falling between roughly £1,730 and £3,553. About 73% of simulations end with a gain. This is encouraging, but these numbers depend heavily on past patterns continuing, which they won’t do perfectly. Simulations are guides, not promises, and real-world outcomes can be better or worse.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    75%
  • Other
    25%

By asset class, about 75% is in equities and 25% in gold. That’s a classic “balanced-tilting-to-growth” mix: most of the long-term return is expected from shares, while gold provides a non-equity diversifier. Gold historically behaves differently from stocks, sometimes holding up when equities struggle, which can soften big portfolio swings. This allocation is well-balanced and fits nicely with a balanced risk profile, especially for someone comfortable with equity risk but wanting a clear shock absorber. Over time, the split will drift as markets move, so periodic check-ins can help ensure it still matches your comfort level.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    22%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    10%
  • Financials
    7%
  • Telecommunications
    7%
  • Industrials
    7%
  • Consumer Staples
    6%
  • Health Care
    5%
  • Energy
    4%
  • Basic Materials
    3%
  • Real Estate
    2%
  • Utilities
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Sector exposure is quite spread out but with a noticeable tilt toward technology at 22%, followed by consumer-related and financial areas. Compared with broad global benchmarks, tech is somewhat elevated, reflecting the Nasdaq-heavy ETF. This can boost returns when innovation and growth companies are in favour, but it may hurt more if rising interest rates or regulatory pressures hit that space. The rest of the sectors are reasonably represented, which is a plus: no single non-tech sector dominates. A key takeaway is that the main “engine” is growth-oriented tech, while other sectors act more as supporting characters.

Regions Info

  • North America
    73%
  • Europe Developed
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Geographically, around 73% of the equity exposure is in North America, with only a sliver in developed Europe and effectively nothing elsewhere. This is a strong home bias toward the US market, which has been a winner over the past decade. However, global indices usually spread more across regions, including Asia and emerging markets. Heavy US dependence means returns are closely linked to the US economy, policy, and currency. That’s not inherently bad—recently it has been very good—but it does mean less diversification across different economic cycles. If the US underperforms, this portfolio would likely feel it strongly.

Market capitalization Info

  • No data
    25%
  • Small-cap
    22%
  • Mega-cap
    19%
  • Large-cap
    14%
  • Micro-cap
    10%
  • Mid-cap
    9%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

The market cap breakdown shows meaningful exposure across the size spectrum. There’s a strong chunk in small-cap and micro-cap areas, backed by the small-cap value ETF, alongside mega- and large-cap holdings from the Nasdaq ETF. Smaller companies tend to be more volatile but can offer higher long-term growth potential; big companies are usually steadier but slower. Having both can balance out some extremes, as different sizes lead in different phases of the cycle. One nuance here is that smaller companies can suffer more in recessions or when credit conditions tighten, so this tilt adds some extra “spiciness” to returns.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    3.31%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF
  • Apple Inc
    2.88%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    2.13%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    1.73%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF
  • Tesla Inc
    1.38%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF
    • LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.32%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF
  • Walmart Inc. Common Stock
    1.30%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    1.30%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    1.23%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    1.14%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF
  • Top 10 total 17.71%

Looking through the ETFs, the top underlying holdings are the big US tech and platform names such as NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Tesla, Alphabet, Meta, and Broadcom. Several of these appear in multiple ETF top-10 lists, creating hidden concentration even if each ETF looks diversified on its own. Because the analysis only captures ETF top-10 holdings, the true overlap is likely higher. This means that shocks to large US growth names could impact the portfolio more than the number of holdings suggests. When different funds share the same giants, you get less diversification than it first appears.

Risk contribution Info

  • SPDR® MSCI USA Small Cap Value Weighted UCITS ETF USD Acc
    Weight: 37.00%
    49.6%
  • Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF
    Weight: 38.00%
    44.2%
  • iShares Physical Gold ETC
    Weight: 25.00%
    6.2%

Risk contribution measures how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ a lot from simple weights. The US small-cap value ETF is 37% of the portfolio but contributes nearly 50% of total risk, meaning it’s the main volatility source. The Nasdaq ETF is 38% of weight and about 44% of risk—so also punchy, but slightly less per pound invested. Gold, at 25% weight, only adds around 6% of risk, acting as a stabiliser. If the actual goal is smoother behaviour, dialing back the riskiest engine or topping up the stabiliser are classic levers.

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 efficient frontier analysis shows where the current mix sits relative to the best possible risk–return trade-off using only these three holdings. The portfolio’s Sharpe ratio, a measure of return per unit of risk, is 0.9, while the optimal combination of the same funds reaches about 1.31 with slightly higher return and noticeably lower risk. Because the current point lies below the frontier by around 1.8 percentage points, reweighting—without adding any new products—could improve efficiency. That’s a reassuring message: the ingredients are strong, and a tweak in proportions could squeeze more out of the same toolkit.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF 0.35%
  • iShares Physical Gold ETC 0.25%
  • SPDR® MSCI USA Small Cap Value Weighted UCITS ETF USD Acc 0.30%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.31%

The portfolio’s total ongoing fee level, with a blended TER of about 0.31%, is impressively low. TER (Total Expense Ratio) is the annual percentage taken by the fund providers to run the ETFs, a bit like a management charge. Keeping this number down is powerful because costs compound in the same way returns do—money not spent on fees stays invested for you. Here, the fee level is in line with or better than many similar strategies, which is a strong foundation for long-term performance. The structure is doing what it should from a cost-efficiency perspective.

What next?

Create your own report?

Analyze your portfolio

Join our community!

Join Discord

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