A quality tilted US large cap portfolio combining growth and dividends with modest diversification benefits
Risk profile
- Secure Speculative
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.
Diversification profile
- Focused Diversified
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.
What type of investor this portfolio is suitable for
Balanced Investors
This setup fits an investor who is comfortable with moderate to moderately high equity risk and aims for long‑term growth, possibly with some secondary interest in income. A typical time horizon would be at least 10 years, allowing enough runway to ride out drawdowns like the roughly one‑third decline seen historically. Personality‑wise, it suits someone who values simplicity, low costs, and alignment with mainstream markets, yet appreciates subtle tilts toward quality and dividends for a smoother ride. Short‑term volatility tolerance should be solid, but not extreme; there is an expectation of ups and downs, balanced by a desire for resilient, established companies rather than speculative positions or heavy leverage.
Positions
-
State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
SPYM - US78464A8541 35.00% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 25.00% -
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
SCHG - US8085243009 20.00% -
Invesco S&P 500® Quality ETF
SPHQ - US46137V2410 20.00%
This portfolio is built from four US stock ETFs, all focused on large companies and together holding 65% in stocks and essentially 0% in cash. The biggest sleeve is a broad index tracker, supported by dedicated growth, dividend, and quality strategies. This structure is simple and very aligned with common US stock benchmarks, which makes it easy to understand and maintain. The trade‑off is that everything points in a similar direction, so there is less true diversification than the number of positions suggests. To strengthen the setup, it may help to define a clear target mix between broad market exposure, return‑seeking tilts, and any stabilizing components such as defensive or non‑stock assets.
True holdings
-
Apple Inc 5.23%Part of fund(s):
- Invesco S&P 500® Quality ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
NVIDIA Corporation 4.98%Part of fund(s):
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
Microsoft Corporation 3.38%Part of fund(s):
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
Amazon.com Inc 2.38%Part of fund(s):
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
Alphabet Inc Class A 2.05%Part of fund(s):
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
Meta Platforms Inc. 1.84%Part of fund(s):
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
Broadcom Inc 1.71%Part of fund(s):
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
-
Merck & Company Inc 1.70%Part of fund(s):
- Invesco S&P 500® Quality ETF
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
The Coca-Cola Company 1.67%Part of fund(s):
- Invesco S&P 500® Quality ETF
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
Alphabet Inc Class C 1.64%Part of fund(s):
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
- Top 10 total 26.59%
Looking through ETF top‑10 holdings, the portfolio’s largest underlying exposures are familiar mega‑cap names such as Apple, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Meta. Together, these positions represent a meaningful chunk of the equity exposure even though they are held only via funds. Because the analysis only covers ETF top‑10 holdings, actual overlaps are probably higher than shown. This concentration in a handful of dominant leaders has boosted historical returns but increases dependence on a small group of companies. When evaluating next steps, it can help to decide how comfortable you are with this “market leaders” tilt and whether you would like to gradually spread risk across a broader set of businesses or styles.
Growth
Historically, the portfolio has delivered a strong compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.53%. CAGR is like your average speed over a long road trip: it smooths the bumps to show long‑term pace. A hypothetical 10,000 dollars invested over the backtest period would have grown impressively compared with a typical broad US equity benchmark, though likely with similar ups and downs. The maximum drawdown of about ‑33% shows it can fall sharply during stress, in line with equity markets. Since only 36 days made up 90% of returns, missing a few big positive days would have hurt results. Past data is encouraging but cannot guarantee future outcomes.
Projection
The Monte Carlo analysis uses 1,000 simulations to project potential future paths, drawing on past returns and volatility. Think of it as running many alternative “what if” histories to see a range of outcomes. The median scenario grows 10,000 dollars to roughly 61,620 dollars, while the pessimistic 5th percentile still ends above 11,800 dollars, and the optimistic 67th percentile reaches around 87,750 dollars. All simulations being positive reflects the strong historical input data, but this is not a promise; markets can behave very differently from the past. These projections are best seen as rough weather forecasts, useful for gauging potential ranges and planning, not as precise predictions to rely on.
Asset classes
- Stocks 65%
- Cash 0%
All meaningful exposure here is in stocks, with negligible cash and no other asset classes like bonds or real assets. This equity‑only approach is very aligned with growth‑oriented benchmarks but naturally raises the portfolio’s sensitivity to market swings and economic cycles. For many long‑term investors, such a structure can be appropriate, but it does not provide the stabilizing cushion that more defensive assets often add during downturns. A practical way to refine things is to decide whether this “all‑equity” stance truly matches your comfort in sharp drawdowns. If not, introducing even a modest allocation to less volatile assets could help smooth the ride while preserving a growth‑focused core.
Sectors
- Technology 16%
- Industrials 9%
- Consumer Staples 8%
- Health Care 8%
- Financials 6%
- Consumer Discretionary 6%
- Energy 6%
- Telecommunications 5%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Utilities 0%
- Real Estate 0%
Sector exposure is anchored in technology, industrials, consumer defensive, healthcare, financials, consumer cyclicals, energy, and communication services, with only minor exposure to basic materials and virtually none to utilities or real estate. This mix is broadly consistent with major US large‑cap benchmarks, which is a positive sign for diversification within the equity slice. However, the sizeable stake in economically sensitive areas like tech and consumer‑related businesses means returns will likely track the broader business cycle closely. Tech‑heavy positions can be more volatile when interest rates rise or sentiment turns. A simple way to refine the profile is to check whether the balance between defensive and cyclical areas matches your tolerance for swings during recessions.
Regions
- North America 65%
- Europe Developed 0%
- Asia Emerging 0%
- Latin America 0%
Geographically, the portfolio is almost entirely in North America, particularly the US, with no meaningful exposure to developed Europe, emerging Asia, or Latin America. This home‑bias matches many standard US benchmarks and has been rewarded over the last decade as US markets outperformed many regions. The cost is that outcomes are tightly tied to the US economy, currency, and policy environment. If the US underperforms other regions at some point, there is little to offset that drag. To broaden resilience, some investors choose to diversify gradually into additional regions, but this depends on comfort with foreign markets, currency swings, and the desire for simplicity versus global reach.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 32%
- Mid-cap 16%
- Mega-cap 15%
- Small-cap 2%
- Micro-cap 0%
Market capitalization exposure is dominated by large and mega‑cap companies, with big caps at 32%, mega caps at 15%, and medium caps at 16%, while small caps are only about 2% and micro caps negligible. This large‑cap bias is very much in line with standard S&P 500‑style benchmarks and helps keep volatility moderate compared with a small‑cap‑heavy approach. Large firms tend to be more stable and widely followed, which can be reassuring, but they may sometimes grow slower than smaller peers. A useful reflection is whether this heavy tilt to big names fits your goals, or whether adding more mid‑ and small‑cap exposure over time would better balance growth potential and diversification.
Factors
Factor exposure shows strong tilts toward quality, yield, and low volatility, with moderate value and momentum and some size exposure. Factors are like underlying “personality traits” of investments that help explain returns, such as quality (strong balance sheets) or yield (higher dividends). This profile suggests the portfolio favors financially healthy, income‑generating companies that historically have been less volatile, which pairs nicely with a balanced risk appetite. The momentum tilt can help in rising markets but may hurt when trends reverse quickly. Since average factor signal coverage is about 57.5%, the picture is informative but not perfect. Keeping this quality‑and‑income tilt intentional can help you stay consistent through different market environments.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationSchwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETFInvesco S&P 500® Quality ETFState Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
The three main equity ETFs—the broad market, growth, and quality funds—are highly correlated, meaning they tend to move in the same direction at the same time. Correlation is simply a measure of how assets move together; when it is high, diversification benefits are limited during market stress. In practical terms, even though there are multiple tickers, the portfolio may behave like a single, slightly style‑tilted US equity position during big sell‑offs. This is not inherently bad, especially if you value simplicity and benchmark alignment. Still, it’s worth checking whether you truly want several similar funds, or would prefer to simplify or introduce components that behave differently when markets get rough.
Risk contribution
-
State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF
Weight: 35.00% 35.6% -
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Weight: 20.00% 23.0% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 25.00% 21.5% -
Invesco S&P 500® Quality ETF
Weight: 20.00% 19.9% - Top 3 risk contribution 80.1%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. Here, the broad S&P 500 ETF accounts for 35% of weight and about 36% of risk, so it behaves as expected. The growth ETF is 20% of weight but contributes about 23% of risk, meaning it is slightly punchier. The dividend ETF, at 25% weight but around 22% risk, actually calms things a bit relative to its size, which is helpful. The top three positions together contribute roughly 80% of risk, signaling concentration. Periodic sizing checks can help ensure each sleeve’s risk role matches how important you want it to be.
Dividends
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.40%
- Invesco S&P 500® Quality ETF 1.00%
- State Street® SPDR® Portfolio S&P 500® ETF 1.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.52%
The total portfolio yield of about 1.52% combines a higher‑yield dividend fund at around 3.4% with lower‑yield growth and quality funds near or below 1%. This mix makes sense: growth strategies usually reinvest profits, while dividend approaches pay more out in cash. Dividends can provide a modest income stream and historically have contributed meaningfully to long‑term equity returns, even if the headline number here is not very high. The current yield aligns well with a growth‑plus‑income profile. If cash flow is a growing priority over time, one way to evolve the structure could be gradually nudging weights toward income‑oriented holdings while staying mindful of overall diversification and risk.
Ongoing product costs
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.04%
- Invesco S&P 500® Quality ETF 0.15%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.05%
Portfolio costs are impressively low, with a total expense ratio (TER) around 0.05%. TER is the annual fee charged by the funds, like a small cut taken each year to keep them running. Being well below many actively managed strategies, this level of cost supports better long‑term performance by letting more of the return stay in your account. The use of major index‑style ETFs is very much in line with cost‑efficient best practices. At this point, there may be limited room for meaningful further cost reduction without sacrificing diversification or liquidity, so the focus can reasonably shift from fee cutting toward fine‑tuning allocation and risk balance instead.
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.
Risk‑return optimization using the Efficient Frontier looks at how to get the best trade‑off between volatility and growth from the existing building blocks. The Efficient Frontier is like a curve showing the most “bang for your buck” in return for each level of risk, assuming only these current ETFs and different weightings between them. Here, the key insight is that some holdings are highly overlapping, so simply mixing them in different proportions may not add much efficiency. Before thinking about optimization, it’s helpful to decide whether to streamline similar funds or introduce more distinct components, so any future reweighting truly improves the risk‑return balance instead of just reshuffling near‑identical exposures.
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.
