This portfolio has only about 1.4 years of historical data, based on the youngest asset in the portfolio. Some metrics, projections, and AI insights may be less reliable and should be interpreted with caution.
Open the Portfolio Builder Reshape your holdings and watch every metric recalculate live. Try it

Heavy crypto and precious metals blend with short history and concentrated risk in a few core holdings

Report created on Jun 26, 2026

Risk profile Info

6/7
Aggressive
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

5/5
Highly Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio is tightly focused on a few themes: about a quarter in bitcoin, a similar slice in silver, and much of the rest in gold miners, physical gold, and energy stocks, plus a small cash-like Treasury ETF. That means it’s diversified across several positions but not across the broader economy. The risk score of 6/7 reflects this focus on volatile, cyclical assets. Because the history is only about 1.4 years, it’s too early to draw strong conclusions about how this structure behaves across full market cycles. Still, the composition clearly leans toward assets that tend to react strongly to inflation, commodity trends, and shifts in risk sentiment, rather than steady broad-market growth.

Growth Info

Over the short 1.4‑year window, a hypothetical $1,000 grew to about $1,280, implying a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) near 19.8%. CAGR is like your average speed on a road trip, smoothing out bumps along the way. The portfolio’s drawdown — its largest peak‑to‑trough drop — was steep at about ‑36%, and it hasn’t fully recovered yet, while US and global markets fell roughly half as much. Performance roughly tracked between US and global benchmarks, slightly ahead of US but behind global. With only 7 days driving 90% of total returns, outcomes have been very event‑driven. Given such a short and volatile sample, these results shouldn’t be treated as a long‑term pattern.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection uses the recent return and volatility history to simulate many possible 15‑year paths for a $1,000 investment. Think of it as re‑rolling the last 1.4 years in lots of different sequences to see a range of outcomes, not a prediction of any single path. The median result lands around $2,275, with a wide “likely” band and some very high and very low scenarios. The average simulated annual return is about 7.8%, and roughly 60% of simulations end positive. Because the inputs come from a very short and unusually volatile period, these ranges are especially uncertain. They mainly show that with assets like these, future values can vary dramatically, both up and down.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    33%
  • Other
    32%
  • Crypto
    30%
  • No data
    5%

Asset‑class exposure is unusual: roughly a third in stocks, about a third in “other” (mainly metals exposures), around 30% in crypto, and a small slice with no data. This is very different from broad benchmarks, which are mostly diversified stocks with modest bonds and cash. Stocks here are mainly tied to commodity‑related businesses, while crypto and metals sit outside traditional stock and bond buckets. That mix can behave very differently from a typical balanced portfolio, especially during inflation spikes or commodity booms and busts. With such a short lookback period, it’s hard to say how these asset classes will interact over decades, but they’ve clearly produced a high‑risk profile in the time observed.

Sectors Info

  • Crypto
    30%
  • Basic Materials
    18%
  • Energy
    15%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Sector data shows a strong tilt toward “Crypto,” Basic Materials, and Energy, with no meaningful exposure to areas like technology, healthcare, or consumer sectors. In many broad equity benchmarks, these three sectors are important but not dominant; here, they effectively define the portfolio. Sectors linked to commodities and digital assets often swing more with macro forces like inflation, interest rates, and global growth expectations. For instance, energy stocks can be very sensitive to oil price shocks, while materials and miners move with metal prices. This sector pattern explains much of the observed volatility. Over only 1.4 years, though, it doesn’t yet show how this concentration might behave across different business cycles.

Regions Info

  • North America
    28%
  • Australasia
    2%
  • Europe Developed
    1%
  • Latin America
    1%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Geographic data captures only the equities, so crypto and metal trusts sit outside this view. Among the covered portion, most exposure is in North America, with very small slices in other regions. That’s relatively aligned with many global equity benchmarks where North America is a large share, and this alignment can be positive for familiarity and data quality. However, given the portfolio’s overall focus on commodities and crypto, geographic labels understate how tied the portfolio is to global demand for energy and metals rather than to any one local economy. With such limited history, it’s unclear whether regional events or global commodity cycles will be the bigger driver over time.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mid-cap
    16%
  • Large-cap
    12%
  • No data
    10%
  • Small-cap
    2%
  • Mega-cap
    2%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Market‑cap data shows modest exposure across mega‑, large‑, mid‑, and small‑cap stocks, though a meaningful part is “no data” because crypto and some instruments don’t fall into standard size buckets. The largest chunk sits in mid‑caps, which often trade somewhere between the stability of giants and the swings of small companies. In many broad indices, mega‑ and large‑caps dominate, so this is a bit more tilted toward the middle of the size spectrum. Size can influence risk: smaller and mid‑sized businesses may react more sharply to changes in commodity prices and financing conditions. With only 1.4 years of observations, though, it’s too early to say how persistent this size‑related risk pattern will be.

True holdings Info

  • Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust (BTC)
    25.00%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Bitcoin Trust
  • Exxon Mobil Corp
    3.29%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
  • Chevron Corp
    2.49%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
  • Newmont Goldcorp Corp
    1.14%
    Part of fund(s):
    • VanEck Gold Miners ETF
  • Agnico Eagle Mines Limited
    1.11%
    Part of fund(s):
    • VanEck Gold Miners ETF
  • ConocoPhillips
    1.01%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
  • First American Funds Inc. - Government Obligations Fund
    0.91%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Volatility Shares Trust - 2x Bitcoin Strategy ETF
  • Barrick Mining Corporation
    0.86%
    Part of fund(s):
    • VanEck Gold Miners ETF
  • Schlumberger NV
    0.71%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
  • Valero Energy Corporation
    0.66%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
  • Top 10 total 37.18%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Looking through the ETFs, a few names stand out across multiple funds, such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and major gold miners like Newmont and Barrick. There is also a large effective exposure to bitcoin through the trust structure. Overlap matters because when the same company appears in several funds, its fortunes can quietly drive a bigger slice of portfolio behavior than the headline weights suggest. Here, the effective concentration in bitcoin plus clusters of large energy and gold‑mining stocks creates a network of linked bets. The coverage is only based on ETF top‑10 holdings, so true overlap is probably higher, meaning hidden concentration may be somewhat understated in these numbers.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
No data
Data availability: 0%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Low
Data availability: 38%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
No data
Data availability: 0%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Very high
Data availability: 5%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Low
Data availability: 100%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Very high
Data availability: 50%

Factor exposures are estimated using statistical models based on historical data and measure systematic (market-relative) tilts, not absolute portfolio characteristics. Results may vary depending on the analysis period, data availability, and currency of the underlying assets.

Factor exposure shows very high tilts toward Quality and Low Volatility, with low exposure to Size and Yield, and no data for Value or Momentum. Factors are like “personality traits” of investments that research links to returns over time. A strong Quality tilt often means more robust balance sheets or business stability, while Low Volatility points to historically steadier price paths. That’s interesting given the portfolio’s aggressive nature and high risk score. It likely reflects characteristics of some underlying stocks rather than the highly volatile crypto and metals themes. Because the sample window is just 1.4 years and some asset types don’t map neatly into factor models, these readings should be treated as rough signals, not hard rules.

Risk contribution Info

  • iShares Silver Trust
    Weight: 22.00%
    31.6%
  • iShares Bitcoin Trust
    Weight: 25.00%
    26.6%
  • VanEck Gold Miners ETF
    Weight: 10.00%
    11.6%
  • VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF
    Weight: 8.00%
    10.6%
  • Volatility Shares Trust - 2x Bitcoin Strategy ETF
    Weight: 5.00%
    10.6%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 91.0%

Risk contribution highlights how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. Here, silver, bitcoin, and the main gold‑miner ETF together make up 47% of the weight but almost 70% of total risk. The leveraged bitcoin ETF is only 5% of the portfolio yet contributes about 10.6% of risk, over twice its size. This happens because leverage and volatility magnify swings, like a loud instrument dominating an orchestra. The result is a portfolio where a handful of positions — especially precious metals and crypto — largely determine how the total value behaves day to day. That concentration is important context for interpreting all other metrics.

Redundant positions Info

  • iShares Bitcoin Trust
    Volatility Shares Trust - 2x Bitcoin Strategy ETF
    High correlation
  • VanEck Gold Miners ETF
    VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF
    High correlation
  • SPDR® Gold Shares
    iShares Gold Trust
    High correlation

Correlation measures how closely assets move together, from +1 (almost identical) to ‑1 (moving in opposite directions). In this portfolio, pairs like the two bitcoin vehicles, the two gold‑miner ETFs, and the two gold trusts move almost identically. When assets are highly correlated, they don’t offer much diversification during stress; they tend to go up and down at similar times. So while the position count is reasonably high, many pieces are effectively variants of the same underlying exposures. With only about 1.4 years of data, correlations could shift in different environments, but the current picture shows that diversification across themes is more limited than the number of line items might suggest.

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.

Open the Portfolio Builder Reshape your holdings and watch every metric recalculate live. Try it

The Risk vs. Return chart shows the current portfolio below the efficient frontier, which is the curve of the best possible risk‑return mixes using these same holdings in different weights. The Sharpe ratio — a measure of return per unit of risk relative to a risk‑free asset — is about 0.51 for the current mix, while the optimal combination reaches around 1.4. That gap means the existing weights haven’t historically made the most of these components. The minimum‑variance portfolio, at extremely low risk, mostly reflects what happens if the lowest‑volatility holding dominates. Because all this is based on a short and turbulent period, it’s more of a structural hint than a precise long‑term guide.

Dividends Info

  • Volatility Shares Trust - 2x Bitcoin Strategy ETF 41.60%
  • VanEck Gold Miners ETF 0.80%
  • VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF 2.70%
  • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund 2.80%
  • Vanguard 0-3 Month Treasury Bill ETF 3.60%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 2.98%

The portfolio’s overall yield is around 2.98%, coming mainly from the leveraged bitcoin ETF’s unusually high reported yield and modest income from energy stocks, miners, and the Treasury ETF. Dividend yield is the annual cash payout as a percentage of price, and it can be an important part of total return, especially in quieter markets. However, for derivatives and leveraged products, very high yields can be more about the product’s mechanics than steady income from underlying businesses. Given the short 1.4‑year sample and the nature of these holdings, it’s hard to treat the current yield as a stable long‑term income level. Here, price movements clearly dominate the return story.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Volatility Shares Trust - 2x Bitcoin Strategy ETF 1.85%
  • VanEck Gold Miners ETF 0.51%
  • VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF 0.52%
  • SPDR® Gold Shares 0.40%
  • iShares Gold Trust 0.25%
  • iShares Bitcoin Trust 0.12%
  • iShares Silver Trust 0.50%
  • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund 0.09%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.37%

The weighted ongoing cost (TER) of about 0.37% per year is moderate for a portfolio with thematic and specialized funds. Some building blocks are very cheap, like the large energy ETF, while others, such as the 2x bitcoin strategy ETF, are more expensive due to leverage and complexity. TER, or Total Expense Ratio, is like a maintenance fee that gets quietly deducted each year, so lower costs generally leave more of any return in your pocket over time. With such a high‑volatility portfolio, performance swings will likely overshadow fees in the short run. Over many years, though, even a few tenths of a percent can compound into a noticeable difference in end wealth.

What next?

Ready to invest in this portfolio?

Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.

Select broker

Create your own report?

Analyze your portfolio

Join our community!

Join Discord

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