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.
This portfolio is built as an almost pure “own the whole world” equity mix, using broad index mutual funds and ETFs. Around three quarters sits in total US and total international stock funds, with smaller slices in US and international small cap value ETFs. This structure keeps things simple while still adding a bit of flavor via the small cap value tilt. Because everything is in stocks and mostly in diversified funds, no single company dominates the allocation. The mix leans heavily on core index building blocks, which is a common backbone approach, and then layers in targeted funds to slightly adjust how the portfolio behaves compared with a plain vanilla global index.
From late 2019 to April 2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $2,302. That works out to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.62%, meaning the value increased as if it grew roughly that amount each year on average. Over the same period, the broad US market grew faster at 15.70% annually, while the global market returned 13.32%. So this portfolio lagged the US but slightly beat the global benchmark. The worst peak‑to‑trough drop was about -35% during early 2020, similar to both benchmarks. As always, past returns only show how this mix handled one particular period and don’t guarantee anything going forward.
The Monte Carlo simulation projects many possible 15‑year paths by shuffling and resampling past return patterns, not by guessing a single future outcome. On that basis, a $1,000 investment ends at a median of about $2,768, which implies an average simulated annual return of 8.08%. The “likely range” of roughly $1,839 to $4,162 shows how wide the middle band of scenarios can be, while the broader range from about $1,011 to $7,581 highlights how extreme good or bad stretches can compound. These numbers aren’t predictions; they’re a way of visualizing uncertainty and seeing that a fully equity portfolio can land in very different places depending on future markets.
All of this portfolio is in stocks, with no bonds or cash-like assets in the mix. That’s straightforward to understand: returns will mainly follow how global equities do, with little built‑in cushion from more defensive asset classes. A 100% stock allocation typically allows for higher long‑term growth potential but also deeper and more frequent swings along the way. Compared with multi‑asset benchmarks that blend stocks and bonds, this setup leans clearly toward growth rather than stability. The diversification here happens within equities across countries, sectors, and company sizes, rather than across fundamentally different asset classes.
Sector exposure is spread across the main parts of the stock market, with technology being the single largest slice at 24%, followed by financials at 17% and industrials at 13%. Health care and consumer areas are present but not dominant, and more defensive sectors like utilities and real estate sit at relatively small weights. This pattern is quite close to what you’d expect from broad global equity indices, where tech has grown into a large share over time. A sector mix that tracks global weights like this generally means the portfolio rises and falls with the broad economy rather than making a concentrated bet on any one industry.
Geographically, about 64% of the portfolio is in North America, with the rest spread across Europe, Japan, other developed Asia, and emerging regions. That North American share is somewhat higher than a strictly market‑cap‑weighted global index but still comfortably within what many call “global with a US tilt.” The remaining allocation covers Europe and Asia fairly broadly, with smaller slices in Latin America and Africa/Middle East. This allocation is well‑balanced and aligns closely with global standards, which helps spread economic and political risk across multiple regions instead of relying on a single country or currency.
By company size, this mix is anchored in mega‑ and large‑cap stocks, which together make up about 72% of the portfolio. Mid‑caps contribute 18%, while small and micro caps add up to about 10%. That’s roughly in line with global equity benchmarks, but the dedicated small cap value funds give a bit of extra weight to the smaller end of the spectrum. Larger companies often bring more stability and liquidity, while smaller ones can be more volatile but sometimes offer higher growth potential. This blend offers broad market representation with a modest tilt toward the smaller, more dynamic part of the market.
Looking through to the underlying company holdings, the top visible exposures are the usual large global names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet. Each of these shows up at around 0.03–0.13% of the overall portfolio, which is quite small. Because the look‑through data only covers the top 10 holdings of each ETF, actual overlap is higher than reported but still spread across many companies thanks to the broad index funds. This suggests that while big names are present in multiple funds, no individual stock is driving a large share of risk or return on its own in this portfolio.
Factor exposure here is fairly balanced. Factor exposure describes how much the portfolio leans into traits like value, size, or momentum that research links to long‑term returns. Most factors sit near neutral, meaning the portfolio behaves similarly to the broad market on value, size, momentum, and quality. The two notable tilts are a higher exposure to low volatility and a lower exposure to yield. A higher low volatility tilt means, historically, the holdings have tended to be a bit steadier than average stocks, even though this is still an all‑equity mix. The relatively low yield suggests the focus is more on total return than on maximizing dividend income.
Risk contribution shows how much each holding adds to the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weights. The main US total market fund is 44% of the portfolio but contributes about 47% of the risk, while the main international fund is 33% of the portfolio and adds about 29% of risk. The top three holdings together account for nearly 88% of total portfolio risk, which is expected given their size. The small cap value ETF has a higher risk‑to‑weight ratio, reflecting that smaller, value‑tilted stocks can swing more. Overall, risk concentration broadly mirrors the allocation structure without any single outlier dominating.
Several pairs of funds in this portfolio move almost identically because they track very similar or overlapping indexes. For example, the main Fidelity and Vanguard total US market funds are highly correlated, as are the core international funds across providers. Correlation measures how much assets tend to move together, from -1 (opposite) to +1 (in lockstep). When two holdings are almost perfectly correlated, they behave like slightly different wrappers around the same underlying market. This setup still works fine from a market exposure point of view, but it means that holding multiple similar funds mainly spreads provider and vehicle risk rather than adding much diversification in market behavior.
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 risk‑versus‑return chart shows the current portfolio sitting below the efficient frontier. The efficient frontier is the curve of best possible return for each risk level using just the existing holdings in different weights. At roughly 19.1% volatility, the portfolio’s Sharpe ratio—a measure of return per unit of risk—is 0.56, while an optimized mix of these same funds could reach about 0.81. There’s also a minimum variance combination with slightly lower risk and a higher Sharpe than the current setup. That means, mathematically, a different weighting of the same ingredients could offer either more expected return at the same risk or similar return with somewhat less volatility.
The portfolio’s overall dividend yield comes in around 1.64%, blending lower‑yielding broad US funds with higher‑yielding international and small cap value funds. Dividend yield is simply the annual cash payouts as a percentage of the current value, like interest on a savings account but less predictable. The international small cap value and global ex‑US funds tend to offer yields above 2%, while the broad US components sit closer to 1%. This pattern suggests that dividends play a meaningful but not dominant role in total return, with most of the portfolio’s growth expected to come from price appreciation rather than income alone.
The average ongoing cost (TER) of this mix is very low at about 0.04% per year. That’s driven by ultra‑cheap core index funds charging between 0.00% and 0.06%, with only the small cap value ETFs costing more in the 0.25–0.36% range. Costs compound quietly over time, so even small differences can add up over decades. Here, the costs are impressively low, supporting better long‑term performance because less return is lost to fees. Using low‑fee building blocks for the bulk of the allocation and keeping higher‑cost specialist funds to modest weights creates a cost structure that is firmly aligned with best practices in index‑oriented 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