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.
Balanced Investors
This kind of setup fits an investor who is comfortable with equity market swings yet wants a smoother ride than a hyper‑aggressive approach. Typical goals might be long‑term wealth building, retirement savings, or funding major life events a decade or more away. They accept that values can drop by a third or more in severe downturns, but they prioritize long‑run growth over short‑term stability. They appreciate simplicity, low costs, and broad diversification instead of frequent trading or concentrated bets. Emotionally, they can stay invested through volatility, relying on a global, low‑cost equity base to compound over many years.
The portfolio is built around two broad stock index ETFs plus a single additional fund. Roughly 70% sits in a total US stock fund, 20% in a broad international stock fund, and 10% in a fund where detailed data is limited. Structurally, this is a very simple, “core plus one” setup, which makes it easier to understand and maintain over time. Simple doesn’t mean unsophisticated here: broad index funds already bake in thousands of underlying companies. The main takeaway is that most risk and return will be driven by global stocks, especially the US, with only a small slice behaving differently.
From 2016 to early 2026, $1,000 grew to about $2,996, which is a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.64%. CAGR is like average speed over a long road trip: it smooths out the bumps. This slightly beat the global market proxy but lagged a pure US market benchmark, which had been unusually strong. Max drawdown, the worst peak‑to‑trough fall, was about -34%, almost identical to both benchmarks. So you’ve earned solid long‑term returns with downside similar to broad markets. The key takeaway is that performance has been quite respectable and broadly in line with what a global‑tilted equity portfolio typically delivers.
Around 90% of the portfolio is clearly in stocks, with about 10% categorized as “no data,” which simply reflects missing classification for that specific fund. A 90% equity mix is growth‑oriented and will naturally swing with markets more than a portfolio that includes sizable bonds or cash. For a “balanced” risk label, this is toward the higher‑equity side, but the diversified stock base helps. The benefit is stronger long‑term growth potential; the trade‑off is larger short‑term drawdowns. The key takeaway is that this setup suits someone who can tolerate equity‑style ups and downs to pursue higher long‑run returns.
Sector exposure is nicely spread, with technology the largest slice around a quarter, followed by meaningful stakes in financials, industrials, consumer areas, and health care. This resembles broad global equity benchmarks, which is a strong indicator of good diversification. A tech tilt brings growth potential but can be more sensitive when interest rates jump or when high‑growth names fall out of favor. Meanwhile, exposure to more defensive sectors like consumer staples and utilities, though smaller, helps soften some blows. Overall, the sector mix is balanced and well‑aligned with global standards, which supports steady participation across different economic cycles.
Geographically, about 71% is in North America, with the rest spread across Europe, Japan, other developed Asia, emerging Asia, and a small slice of Africa/Middle East. This is similar to global stock indexes, which are naturally US‑heavy because of market size. That alignment is a strength: it means the portfolio isn’t making big regional bets away from the global market structure. The flip side is that outcomes remain quite tied to the US economy and dollar, even with international exposure. Still, having almost 30% outside North America adds useful diversification if non‑US markets outperform in future decades.
By market cap, the portfolio leans toward mega‑ and large‑cap companies, with smaller portions in mid, small, and micro caps. This is typical for funds that track the whole market using market‑cap weighting: the biggest companies dominate index levels. Large caps tend to be more stable and liquid, while smaller caps can be more volatile but sometimes offer higher growth over long periods. Having some exposure across the full size spectrum improves diversification. The key point is that risk and returns will mostly be driven by the largest global companies, with smaller caps providing extra diversification at the margin.
Looking through the ETFs, the largest underlying exposures are megacap US names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon. None are held directly, but they appear via both core index funds, which creates “hidden” concentration: those top ten underlying companies already amount to a noticeable slice of the portfolio. This is normal for market‑cap index funds, where the biggest companies get the biggest weights. It does mean a meaningful chunk of outcomes depends on how this handful of giants performs. The flip side is that this exposure closely mirrors mainstream indices, which is a positive sign of alignment with market standards.
Factor exposures are broadly neutral across value, size, momentum, quality, and yield, meaning the portfolio behaves much like the overall market on those dimensions. The one notable tilt is toward low volatility, which shows a mild preference for stocks that historically swing less than the market. Factor investing targets characteristics like these that research links to long‑term returns. A higher low‑vol tilt can help reduce drawdowns and smooth the ride, especially during turbulent periods, without dramatically changing expected returns. This is a nice alignment with the “balanced” risk profile: it keeps things equity‑focused while softening some of the sharpest bumps.
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weights. The US total market ETF is 70% of assets but contributes about 77% of total portfolio risk, slightly more than its size. The international ETF contributes a bit less risk than its 20% weight, while the smaller fund contributes noticeably less risk than its 10% weight. That means portfolio behavior is dominated by US stocks. This is not inherently bad, especially given strong historical US performance, but it’s useful to recognize that the headline weights understate how central that one ETF is to overall volatility.
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 is basically on the efficient frontier, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.64 versus 0.73 for the theoretical optimal using the same holdings. The Sharpe ratio compares excess return to volatility, like measuring how much reward you get per unit of risk. Being on or very near the frontier is a strong sign that the allocation is already efficient for its risk level. The “optimal” and “min variance” mixes would only tweak things around the edges, not overhaul the profile. This alignment confirms the portfolio structure is doing a good job with the tools it uses.
The blended dividend yield of about 1.46% reflects a modest income stream from the underlying holdings. The international fund yields more than the US fund, which is common, so that 20% slice carries most of the income weight. Dividends can be a helpful component of total return, especially when reinvested automatically, but in this portfolio they’re a side benefit rather than the main feature. The real driver of outcomes is capital growth from stock price movements. For someone focused on long‑term growth over current income, this moderate yield is entirely reasonable and fits a growth‑oriented, accumulation‑stage approach.
Costs are impressively low: the overall TER sits around 0.03%, thanks to the two core Vanguard ETFs charging just 0.03% and 0.05%. TER (Total Expense Ratio) is like a small annual membership fee for owning the fund. Over decades, shaving even a few tenths of a percent can meaningfully boost what you keep. Being at the extreme low end of industry costs is a real advantage and fully aligned with best practices in long‑term investing. It means more of the portfolio’s return stays in your pocket instead of going to fund managers every year.
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