Two zero fee index funds doing a surprisingly competent job while still leaving some easy wins
Report created on Sep 16, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
4/5
Positions
-
FZ FIDELITY ZERO INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND
FZILX - US31635T6091 70.00% -
FZ FIDELITY ZERO TOTAL MARKET INDEX FUND
FZROX - US31635T7081 30.00%
This portfolio is the IKEA flatpack of investing: two cheap index funds bolted together and called a day. Structurally it’s 70% “rest of the world” and 30% US total market, which is an odd twist given most people accidentally do the opposite. It’s simple to the point of laziness, but at least it’s coherent: 100% stocks, no bonds, no cash drag, no weird side bets. The downside of this two-fund diet is that nothing here is being fine‑tuned; the knobs are basically stuck on “global-ish” and “all equity.” So it works, but it doesn’t exactly scream thoughtful design.
Growth
Historically, this thing has done the investing equivalent of “pretty good, but not brag‑worthy.” Turning $1,000 into $2,344 with an 11.11% CAGR is solid on paper, until it stands next to the US market’s 14.76% and the global market’s 12.14%. Then it looks like the kid who studied but still landed a B. The max drawdown around COVID, at -34.19%, was basically as painful as the benchmarks, so it took the hits but didn’t earn the extra return. Past data is like yesterday’s weather forecast: better than nothing, but no promises it repeats.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection says this portfolio’s future is a wide “could be fine, could be awkward” range. Monte Carlo is basically a thousand alternate-universe simulations of returns, and the median ending value of $2,793 in 15 years is… okay. Not thrilling, not disastrous. The fact that $919 shows up in the pessimistic 5th percentile should be a reminder that stocks don’t owe anyone a profit. On the flip side, $8,490 at the optimistic end shows the usual equity lottery ticket potential. It’s all probabilities, not guarantees, so the chart is more “vibes” than prophecy.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset class breakdown is delightfully boring: 100% stocks, zero bonds, zero alternatives, zero anything remotely fancy. For a portfolio labelled “Balanced Investors” with a 4/7 risk score, this is basically showing up to a “balanced” potluck with only hot sauce. No shock that drawdowns hit mid‑30% levels — there’s nothing here to cushion the fall. Relying fully on equities means riding the full emotional roller coaster: big upswings and equally dramatic face‑plants. It’s clean and pure, but the word “balanced” on the label feels more like marketing than math.
Sectors
- Technology 25%
- Financials 21%
- Industrials 13%
- Consumer Discretionary 9%
- Health Care 8%
- Telecommunications 6%
- Basic Materials 5%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Energy 4%
- Utilities 3%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector exposure looks like a generic global index, which is good in theory but still hides some quirks. Technology at 25% and financials at 21% means almost half the portfolio lives in just two economic soap operas: “software eats the world” and “banks hopefully don’t blow up again.” The rest is spread reasonably across industrials, consumer names, health care, and a smattering of everything else, but nothing here looks deliberately tilted. This is the default settings of sector exposure: fine, functional, but totally at the mercy of whatever broad markets decide to obsess over next.
Regions
- North America 36%
- Europe Developed 26%
- Asia Developed 12%
- Japan 11%
- Asia Emerging 7%
- Australasia 3%
- Africa/Middle East 2%
- Latin America 2%
- Europe Emerging 1%
Geographically, this thing is oddly reasonable for such a minimal setup. About 36% in North America and the majority abroad gives a proper global presence rather than the usual “America plus token foreign garnish.” Europe developed and Asia developed together form a big chunk, with Japan actually broken out distinctly at 11%, which is more attention than it usually gets. Emerging markets are present but not loud. For once, “Broadly Diversified” is not a lie. Surprisingly sensible international allocation for a portfolio that otherwise looks like it was built in under five minutes.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 49%
- Large-cap 32%
- Mid-cap 15%
- Small-cap 2%
- Micro-cap 1%
Market cap exposure is basically “index fund starter pack”: about half in mega-caps, another third in large-caps, and a thin sprinkling of mid, small, and micro. With 81% in mega and large companies, this is very much a blue-chip popularity contest, not a playground for scrappy small caps. That’s fine if the goal is to move mostly with the world’s headline names, but it does mean the supposed “total” and “international” exposure still leans heavily on the corporate giants. The tiny slices in small and micro are more decoration than a meaningful tilt.
Factors
Factor exposure is impressively “meh” across almost everything — value, size, momentum, and quality are all basically neutral. That’s index behavior: no strong bets, just going where the market goes. The only real personality trait here is a higher tilt to low volatility at 71%, which is like saying, “I want stocks, but could they scream slightly less on the way down?” Yield is low at 30%, so this thing clearly doesn’t care about income; it’s more about price growth. Overall, the factor profile is actually balanced — someone either did their homework or got lucky by buying broad funds.
Risk contribution
-
FIDELITY ZERO INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND
Weight: 70.00% 68.2% -
FIDELITY ZERO TOTAL MARKET INDEX FUND
Weight: 30.00% 31.8%
Risk contribution is almost comically proportional. The international fund at 70% weight contributes 68.24% of risk, and the US fund at 30% weight contributes 31.76%. Nothing here is secretly hijacking volatility; both pieces are pulling exactly the weight you’d expect. That’s the upside of using two giant, diversified funds instead of sprinkling in drama‑heavy niche products. It does, however, mean that if the non-US world has a bad decade, this portfolio is fully along for that ride, because that 70% chunk is the main driver of both risk and return.
Risk vs. return
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 efficient frontier, this portfolio is annoyingly competent. The current allocation basically sits on the curve, meaning that for the given holdings, it’s achieving about as good a risk/return trade‑off as the math allows. The Sharpe ratio of 0.46 isn’t heroic, but the optimizer can’t find some magical reweighting that dramatically improves things without changing what’s in the toolbox. The max‑Sharpe version bumps expected return to 15.34% at higher risk, while minimum variance slightly trims risk with a better Sharpe. But in practice, this two‑fund split is already doing its job reasonably well.
Dividends
- FIDELITY ZERO INTERNATIONAL INDEX FUND 2.30%
- FIDELITY ZERO TOTAL MARKET INDEX FUND 0.90%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.88%
Dividend yield at 1.88% is the portfolio whispering, “You’re here for growth, not a paycheck.” The international fund does more of the heavy lifting at 2.30%, while the US total market sits at a skinny 0.90%. This is not an income machine; it’s more like a growth‑tilted index combo that tosses out a modest cash snack now and then. Anyone expecting steady, fat distributions would be mildly disappointed. The trade‑off is that low yield usually implies more of the return shows up in price movement, which also makes tax timing less friendly if selling is involved.
What next?
Ready to invest in this portfolio?
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
Create your own report?
Join our community!
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.
Help us improve Insightfolio
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey