This portfolio is a three‑fund, 100% stock mix with a clear tilt. About 40% sits in a dedicated US small‑cap value ETF, 30% in a broad US total market ETF, and 30% in a broad total international ETF. So it is fully invested in equities, with no bonds or cash in the mix. Structurally, this combines a simple “core and satellites” idea: broad global coverage from the two total market funds, plus a focused small‑cap value sleeve on top. That design creates more moving parts than a single‑fund setup, but it also gives more control over where risk and return are coming from, especially toward smaller, cheaper US companies.
From late 2019 to early 2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $2,433, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.45%. CAGR is the “average yearly speed” of growth, smoothing out the bumps over time. Over the same period, it slightly lagged the US market (16.02% CAGR) but outpaced the global market (13.52% CAGR). The portfolio’s worst peak‑to‑trough drop was about ‑40% during early 2020, deeper than the benchmarks’ roughly ‑34% falls, reflecting its higher equity and small‑cap exposure. Only 20 days delivered 90% of total returns, underlining how a handful of big days can drive long‑term equity outcomes.
The Monte Carlo projection uses many random “what if” paths based on historical behavior to imagine future outcomes. Think of it as running the next 15 years 1,000 different ways, then looking at the distribution. Here, the median outcome turns $1,000 into about $2,650, with a central “likely” range of roughly $1,765–$4,108. There is still a meaningful chance of ending close to or even below the starting amount, and some paths grow far more. The average simulated annual return of 7.92% is significantly lower than recent historical performance, which highlights that past returns may not repeat, especially over long horizons.
All of this portfolio is in stocks, with 0% in bonds, cash, or other assets. That creates clear, focused exposure to equity growth but also means there’s no built‑in cushion from typically steadier asset classes. In market stress, a 100% stock portfolio can swing sharply, as seen in the nearly 40% historical drawdown. Compared to a more mixed stock‑bond allocation, this is structurally higher risk and higher potential reward. Within equities, the use of total market funds plus a dedicated small‑cap value fund helps diversify across company sizes and styles, but it does not change the underlying all‑equity risk profile.
Sector-wise, the portfolio is reasonably balanced, with financials the largest slice at 21%, followed by technology at 17%, then meaningful allocations to industrials and consumer discretionary at 13% each. Energy at 10% and health care at 7% add further variety, while more defensive areas like consumer staples, utilities, and real estate have smaller weights. This mix looks more diversified than a very tech‑heavy growth portfolio and aligns fairly well with broad equity benchmarks, though with a bit more emphasis on economically sensitive sectors. That can support returns when growth is strong but can also add cyclicality during economic slowdowns.
Geographically, about 72% of the portfolio is in North America, with the rest spread across Europe, Japan, other developed Asia, emerging Asia, and smaller allocations to Australasia and Latin America. This is more US‑tilted than a pure global market index, which gives somewhat more weight to non‑US regions. The result is a portfolio closely tied to the US economy and dollar, while still capturing a significant slice of global markets. This alignment with US benchmarks has been helpful in a period when US stocks have led, but it also means performance is heavily influenced by how US markets behave relative to the rest of the world.
The market‑cap breakdown is unusually spread out: 26% in mega‑caps, 18% in large‑caps, 12% in mid‑caps, 24% in small‑caps, and 19% in micro‑caps. That’s a much bigger allocation to small and micro companies than a typical global index, which is dominated by mega and large‑caps. Smaller companies often have more room to grow but can also be more volatile, less liquid, and more sensitive to economic shifts. This structure means the portfolio’s long‑term results may differ noticeably from headline indices, with potentially stronger performance in periods when smaller companies and neglected areas of the market do well.
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, the largest underlying names are familiar mega‑cap growth and tech‑related companies like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Taiwan Semiconductor, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Tesla. Combined, the top ten underlying positions only cover about 1.9% to 0.5% each and just 16.4% of the portfolio overall, so there is no single‑stock dominance. There is some overlap where the same giants appear in multiple ETFs, but given that only top‑10 positions are visible, actual overlap is likely higher. Still, the current data shows a broad, diffuse exposure where index heavyweights are present but not overwhelmingly concentrated.
The factor profile shows clear tilts toward value (74%) and size (71%), both marked as “High” relative to a 50% market average. Factors are like the underlying “flavors” of a portfolio — characteristics such as cheapness (value) or company size that research links to long‑term returns. A strong value tilt means more exposure to companies trading at lower prices relative to fundamentals, which may lag during growth‑led rallies but can shine in value recoveries. A strong size tilt leans toward smaller firms, increasing potential upside and volatility. Other factors like momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility sit close to neutral, so they behave more like the broad market.
Risk contribution data shows that the Avantis US Small Cap Value ETF, at 40% weight, contributes nearly half of the portfolio’s total risk (about 49.9%), with a risk‑to‑weight ratio of 1.25. In simple terms, this holding punches above its size in driving ups and downs. The two Vanguard total market funds together make up 60% of the weight but contribute roughly half the risk, acting as relatively steadier anchors. This underscores that position size and risk impact are not the same thing: more volatile holdings, especially in smaller companies, can dominate the portfolio’s behavior even without being the majority of assets.
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 compares this portfolio’s risk/return mix against the best combinations possible using these same three ETFs. The current mix has a Sharpe ratio of 0.56, below both the minimum‑variance portfolio (0.63) and the max‑Sharpe “optimal” mix (0.76). A Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of volatility, using a 4% risk‑free rate here. The current allocation also sits about 1.07 percentage points below the efficient frontier at its current risk level, meaning there are alternative weightings of the same holdings that would have delivered better risk‑adjusted performance historically. That’s about fine‑tuning weights, not changing the ingredients.
The combined dividend yield is about 1.66%, with the international ETF contributing the highest yield at 2.70%, and the US total market and small‑cap value funds yielding around 1.10% and 1.30%. Dividend yield is the annual cash payout as a percentage of the investment value, like rent from owning a property. Here, income is a modest but steady part of total return, with most of the portfolio’s growth historically coming from price appreciation rather than payouts. This pattern is typical for growth‑oriented equity portfolios and means the experience will feel more driven by market moves than by regular cash distributions.
Total ongoing costs, measured by the weighted average TER (Total Expense Ratio), come to about 0.12% per year. TER is the annual fee charged by the funds as a percentage of assets, quietly deducted inside the ETFs. This level is impressively low, especially for a portfolio with meaningful international and factor tilts. Lower fees mean that more of the underlying market return reaches the investor instead of being siphoned off in costs, and the benefit compounds over time. Relative to many active or more complex strategies, this cost structure is a strong positive feature and aligns well with best practices for long‑term equity investing.
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