This portfolio is a three‑fund, all‑equity mix anchored by a global index ETF at 70%, with two 15% satellite positions: a diversified all‑equity fund and a US momentum ETF. Structurally, this is a “core and satellites” setup, where the core tracks the broad global market and the satellites add specific tilts. That matters because the core helps keep behavior close to the market, while the satellites can meaningfully influence risk and return without dominating. Overall, the design is simple, transparent, and easy to monitor: most of the heavy lifting comes from one globally diversified fund, while the smaller allocations introduce active elements and potential performance differences versus plain indexing.
Over the period from late 2022 to late 2026, the portfolio turned $1,000 into about $2,299, which implies a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 23.82%. CAGR is like your average speed on a long road trip — it smooths out bumps along the way. This return slightly exceeded both the US market and the global market benchmarks. Max drawdown — the worst peak‑to‑trough drop — was about -17.18%, a bit milder than the US market’s decline. The portfolio recovered that drawdown within a few months, showing resilience. Only 31 days produced 90% of total returns, underlining how a handful of strong days can shape multi‑year outcomes, and why staying invested across swings can be critical for capturing gains.
The Monte Carlo simulation projects possible futures by “re‑rolling the dice” on returns 1,000 times based on historical patterns. It doesn’t predict a single outcome; instead it shows a range. Here, a $1,000 starting amount has a median 15‑year result of about $2,807, with a broad but informative spread: roughly $1,814 to $4,249 in the middle half of scenarios. The annualized return across all simulations is 8.21%. These numbers show what could happen if markets behave somewhat like the past, not what will happen. They also highlight that even with a decent average, outcomes vary widely — from barely above $1,000 to several times the initial amount — which is the basic trade‑off of equity risk.
All of this portfolio is in stocks, with 0% in bonds, cash, or alternatives. An all‑equity stance means the portfolio is focused on long‑term growth and is fully exposed to stock market ups and downs. In terms of diversification, owning many stocks across funds spreads company‑specific risk, but without bonds or cash there is little cushion during equity bear markets. Compared with many mixed portfolios that blend stocks and bonds, this setup will typically swing more both upward and downward. The balanced risk label and mid‑range risk score mainly reflect diversification within equities, not a mix of different asset classes, so equity volatility remains the primary driver of overall behavior.
Sector exposure is tilted toward technology at 33%, followed by financials, industrials, and a spread across consumer, health care, telecom, and other areas. This looks reasonably similar to broad global benchmarks, which currently have a tech‑heavy profile as well. A tech tilt can be a positive driver in periods when innovation‑led companies outperform, but it also means sensitivity to things like interest rate shifts and changes in sentiment toward high‑growth businesses. The smaller weights in defensive sectors such as utilities and consumer staples suggest the portfolio may lean more toward growth and cyclicality than toward stability, especially during sharp market rotations between “risk‑on” and “defensive” phases.
Geographically, about 71% of the portfolio is in North America, with the rest spread across Europe, developed Asia, Japan, and smaller allocations to emerging regions. This US‑heavy pattern is broadly in line with global market capitalization weights, where North America also dominates. That alignment is helpful because it keeps country bets modest rather than making big active tilts toward or away from specific regions. The non‑US exposure still matters: it adds companies driven by different economic cycles, currencies, and policy environments. At the same time, the strong US presence means portfolio results will likely track US market fortunes quite closely, especially during major bull or bear phases centered on US large caps.
The portfolio is concentrated in mega‑cap and large‑cap stocks, which together make up over 70% of exposure, with meaningful but smaller slices in mid‑caps and limited small/micro‑cap exposure. Market capitalization describes company size, and larger firms typically have more stable earnings and liquidity but somewhat lower long‑term return potential than smaller, riskier firms. This size mix is broadly market‑like, so there is no strong tilt toward tiny or speculative companies. In practice, the portfolio’s day‑to‑day moves will be driven mostly by big, well‑known names, while smaller holdings play a secondary role. That supports smoother trading and lower idiosyncratic risk, though it also ties performance closely to large‑company trends.
Looking through to top holdings, a handful of large technology‑related names stand out: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Broadcom, Alphabet, Amazon, and others collectively form a notable portion of the visible exposure. Many of these appear across multiple ETFs, which creates overlap — the same companies influencing performance several times through different funds. Because only ETF top‑10 holdings are captured, this overlap is likely understated. Hidden concentration like this is common in global equity portfolios today, since the biggest companies dominate major indices. The implication is that portfolio behavior is especially sensitive to these mega‑cap leaders, so their rallies or slumps can have an outsized impact compared with their apparent percentage in any single fund.
Factor exposure, which measures how much the portfolio leans into characteristics like value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility, is broadly neutral across the board here. Neutral means the portfolio behaves similarly to the overall market on these dimensions rather than heavily leaning into or away from any single style. That might be surprising given the dedicated momentum ETF, but its effect is balanced by the broad, market‑like core funds. The benefit of this profile is that performance should not be overly dependent on one particular factor environment; instead, results will mainly reflect general equity market moves and the dominance of large global companies, rather than a pronounced style bet such as deep value or high yield.
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. Here, the 70% global ETF contributes about 68% of total portfolio risk, almost exactly in line with its size. The Avantis fund contributes slightly less risk than its weight, while the momentum ETF contributes more — 17.5% of total risk from a 15% stake. That’s typical for a more concentrated or style‑focused product. Overall, risk is not dominated dramatically by any single fund beyond the natural influence of the large core holding. This indicates that position sizes are reasonably aligned with their volatility, and the momentum sleeve adds extra punch without fully overwhelming the broader mix.
The correlation data shows that the Avantis all‑equity ETF and the Vanguard global ETF move almost identically. Correlation measures how often two assets move in the same direction; high correlation limits diversification benefits between them. In practice, this tells us that those two funds are providing very similar economic exposure, even if their underlying holdings and strategies differ at the margins. That is not inherently a problem — it can still spread manager and index risk — but it does mean most diversification is coming from owning many companies globally, not from mixing uncorrelated strategies. The momentum ETF likely also tracks broad markets closely, further reinforcing equity‑market‑driven 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.
On the risk‑return chart, the portfolio sits on or very near the efficient frontier — the curve showing the best expected return for each level of risk using just these three holdings. The Sharpe ratio, which measures return per unit of risk above a risk‑free rate, is 1.21 for the current mix, with a higher 1.47 at the optimal point and 1.34 at minimum variance. The key takeaway is that, based on historical data, this combination of funds is already being used efficiently: there is no obvious sign of “wasted” risk. Small tweaks to the weights could have improved past risk‑adjusted returns, but the existing allocation still stacks up well versus alternative mixes of the same ingredients.
The portfolio’s overall dividend yield is about 1.36%, reflecting a growth‑oriented global equity mix. Dividends are the cash payments companies make to shareholders and form one component of total return, alongside price changes. Here, income is modest, especially compared with traditional high‑dividend or bond portfolios, so most of the return story will come from capital gains rather than cash flow. The slight yield differences between funds — with the global ETF highest and the momentum ETF lowest — are typical, as momentum and growth strategies often prioritize companies that reinvest profits rather than paying them out. Over time, even a modest yield can still contribute meaningfully when reinvested, but it is not the main focus.
Weighted across holdings, the total expense ratio (TER) comes in at about 0.10% per year, which is very low by industry standards. TER is the ongoing fee charged by funds to cover management and operating costs; it is taken out of returns automatically. Keeping this number small is powerful over long periods because every fraction of a percent saved stays invested and can compound. The inexpensive global index core does most of the work here, while the slightly higher‑cost Avantis fund remains moderate. This cost profile is a clear strength of the portfolio: it aligns with best practices for long‑term investing and leaves more of any market performance in the investor’s pocket rather than in fees.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?
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