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.
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.
The portfolio is a pure equity mix built from three broad ETFs: a global all‑world core at 60%, complemented by 20% global small caps and 20% emerging markets. This structure leans clearly toward growth, using cheap index funds rather than individual stocks. A single asset class makes the ride bumpier but keeps things very simple and transparent. For someone wanting long-term growth, this kind of “one core plus two satellites” setup is a clean way to add extra return drivers. The key takeaway is that risk is driven mainly by global equities, with added spice from small caps and emerging markets rather than bonds or cash buffers.
From late 2019 to March 2026, €1,000 grew to about €1,817, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.49%. CAGR is like your average yearly speed over the whole journey. That’s quite close to the global market’s 10.98% but with a very similar max drawdown (about -34%). Compared with the global benchmark’s €1,976, the portfolio slightly lagged but stayed in the same ballpark, which is a positive sign for a low-cost, broadly diversified equity mix. The US market benchmark here looks off, likely due to data quirks, so focusing on the global comparison gives a more realistic sense of alignment.
The Monte Carlo simulation projects how €1,000 might grow over 10 years using many random paths based on past returns. Think of it as replaying history 1,000 different ways to see a range of possible futures. The median outcome suggests around 230% cumulative return, while even the 5th percentile still shows a small gain, and most simulations end positive. The average simulated annual return of about 10.27% lines up well with history. Still, this method assumes the future roughly resembles the past, which it rarely does perfectly. It’s a useful guide for expectations and planning, not a promise of any specific outcome.
All assets are in stocks, with no bonds, cash, or alternatives showing above the 2% threshold. That’s very straightforward and makes the portfolio easy to understand, but it also means there’s no built‑in shock absorber during market crashes. Many balanced benchmarks mix equities with bonds to smooth volatility, so this sits closer to a growth‑oriented allocation despite the “balanced” risk label. The benefit is maximum exposure to long‑term equity growth; the trade‑off is living through bigger swings in value. Anyone using this setup usually needs a long time horizon and enough emotional tolerance for sharp temporary drops.
Sector exposure is broad and well spread: technology around a quarter, then financials, industrials, cyclical and defensive consumer areas, healthcare, communication services, and meaningful slices in materials, energy, real estate, and utilities. This looks very similar to global equity benchmarks, which is a strong indicator of solid diversification. A tech tilt can boost growth, but it also tends to react strongly to interest rate changes and sentiment shifts. The positive here is that no single sector dominates excessively, so the portfolio isn’t betting the farm on any one theme. Sector risk is well managed for a 100% equity allocation.
Geographically, the portfolio leans a bit more global than a typical home‑biased investor: about half in North America, with the rest spread across developed Europe, Japan, developed Asia, plus a clear 14% allocation to emerging Asia and smaller slices in Africa/Middle East and Latin America. This is more diversified than many US‑centric or Europe‑heavy portfolios and sits close to global‑market weights. The notable feature is the meaningful emerging markets presence, which adds growth potential and currency diversification but also higher volatility and political risk. Overall, geographic spread is a real strength and closely aligned with global standards.
Market cap exposure is nicely layered: roughly 40% mega caps, 28% large caps, 19% mid caps, 10% small caps, and 3% micro caps. That’s a clear but controlled tilt toward smaller companies versus a pure global large‑cap index. Smaller firms often have higher long‑term return potential but more pronounced ups and downs, especially during recessions or liquidity shocks. This structure helps avoid over‑reliance on the very largest names while still letting those giants drive stability and liquidity. The balance here is thoughtful: enough small and mid caps to matter, but not so much that they dominate overall risk.
Looking through ETF top holdings, the biggest underlying positions are large global names like TSMC, NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Tencent. These appear via multiple funds, so a single company can influence the portfolio more than any one ETF weight suggests. For example, TSMC is nearly 4% overall from different ETFs combined. Because only top‑10 ETF holdings are captured, true overlap is likely higher, especially among mega‑cap tech stocks. The main takeaway: while the portfolio feels very diversified, its biggest return drivers are still a relatively small group of global giants that can strongly sway short‑term performance.
Factor exposure highlights momentum and size as the main tilts. Factor exposure means how much the portfolio leans into traits like value, quality, or momentum that research links to returns. A strong momentum tilt (53%) suggests holdings that have recently done well, which can keep boosting returns in trending markets but may reverse sharply when leadership changes. Size exposure (36.3%) shows the deliberate overweight to smaller companies. Average signal coverage is modest, so readings are approximate rather than precise. Still, the pattern suggests a growthy, trend‑following profile rather than a deep‑value, high‑dividend, or defensive low‑volatility stance.
Risk contribution shows how much each holding adds to overall portfolio ups and downs, which can differ from its simple weight. Here, the 60% all‑world ETF contributes about 59% of risk, almost exactly in line with its size. The small‑cap ETF has a slightly higher risk‑to‑weight ratio, contributing about 22% of risk from a 20% weight, reflecting its extra volatility. Emerging markets contribute just under their 20% weight to total risk. That pattern is actually quite healthy: risk is broadly aligned with allocations, with no single fund wildly dominating. Rebalancing mostly means keeping these shares roughly where they are over time.
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.
On the risk‑return chart, the current mix has expected return around 10.54% with 16.41% volatility, giving a Sharpe ratio of 0.52. The Sharpe ratio measures how much return you get per unit of risk. The efficient frontier shows that, using only these three ETFs, different weightings could achieve a Sharpe up to 0.66 at similar or even slightly lower risk. That means the current allocation is below the frontier, so the same ingredients could potentially be combined more efficiently. Re‑weighting, not adding products, could modestly boost expected return or reduce volatility while keeping the overall simple three‑fund structure intact.
Total ongoing costs (TER) are about 0.22%, which is impressively low for a globally diversified equity lineup with small caps and emerging markets included. TER, or Total Expense Ratio, is the annual fee taken inside each ETF. Keeping costs low is one of the few things investors can fully control, and small fee differences compound massively over decades. This portfolio’s cost level is firmly in “best practice” territory and directly supports better long‑term outcomes. There’s little to squeeze further without sacrificing diversification or liquidity, so cost management here is already a real strength and worth keeping as a core principle.
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