Concentrated US equity portfolio with strong quality tilt and overlapping broad market index coverage
Report created on May 12, 2026Risk profile
3/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
VT Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
VTI - US9229087690 59.59% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 24.04% -
MS Microsoft Corporation
MSFT - US5949181045 6.05% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 5.91% -
DR Roundhill Memory ETF
DRAM 4.41%
This portfolio is built almost entirely from US equity ETFs, with a small individual stock position. The core is two broad US index trackers, which together make up over 80% of the weight, plus a dedicated dividend ETF, a small thematic ETF, and a direct Microsoft holding. Structurally, this is a fairly simple, stock‑heavy setup with one clear home market focus. Because the mix is dominated by broad index funds, many underlying companies are held through multiple routes, which can create hidden concentration even when headline holdings look diversified. With only about a month of data, it’s too early to draw strong conclusions about how this structure behaves across different market cycles.
Growth
Over the short one‑month window, the portfolio turned $1,000 into about $1,134, implying an annualized growth rate (CAGR) above 250%. CAGR, or Compound Annual Growth Rate, is like average speed on a road trip, smoothing out daily bumps. The portfolio outpaced both the US and global market benchmarks over this brief period, with a slightly smaller maximum drop than either reference. However, such extreme annualized numbers over a few weeks mostly reflect a strong starting streak, not a stable pattern. Past performance is never a guarantee of future results, and with such limited history the data here mainly shows that recent conditions happened to be favorable.
Projection
The Monte Carlo simulation projects many possible 15‑year paths for this portfolio using the short historical sample as a starting point. Monte Carlo is basically a “what if” engine that reruns thousands of alternate futures by shuffling returns, then shows ranges like median outcome and best‑ and worst‑case bands. Here, the median path roughly triples $1,000 over 15 years, but the possible outcomes span from losing money to substantial growth. Because the inputs come from only about a month of data, these projections are more fragile than usual. They illustrate the idea that long‑term returns can vary widely, rather than providing a dependable forecast of what this portfolio will actually deliver.
Asset classes
- Stocks 95%
- No data 4%
Asset‑class exposure is very straightforward: about 95% of the portfolio is in stocks, with a small slice labeled “no data,” which simply reflects missing classification rather than a specific asset type. A stock‑heavy allocation tends to move more with equity markets, amplifying both rises and falls compared with mixed stock‑bond blends. There is effectively no explicit ballast from traditional diversifiers like bonds or listed real assets in the breakdown. Given the limited history, it’s not yet clear how this mix behaves in deeper downturns, but structurally it’s geared toward equity‑driven growth rather than smoothing the ride using multiple asset classes.
Sectors
- Technology 34%
- Financials 11%
- Health Care 9%
- Consumer Discretionary 9%
- Telecommunications 9%
- Industrials 8%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Energy 4%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
- Basic Materials 2%
Sector exposure is led by technology at roughly a third of the equity slice, with the rest spread across financials, healthcare, consumer areas, telecom, industrials, and smaller allocations to energy, utilities, real estate, and basic materials. This tech‑tilt is common in broad US index tracking, since the largest companies today cluster in that area. Sector allocation matters because different parts of the economy react differently to interest rates, inflation, and growth surprises. A tech‑heavier mix can show stronger performance when innovation‑led companies are in favor, but also sharper swings if sentiment turns or rates rise. Within the short data window, recent tech strength largely supports the strong headline returns.
Regions
- North America 95%
Geographically, the portfolio is overwhelmingly concentrated in North America at about 95%, which aligns with its use of US‑focused ETFs and a US megacap stock. This home‑market bias is typical for many investors, and it lines up broadly with the large weight of US equities in global market indexes. Geographic concentration matters because local economic policies, currency moves, and regional shocks can influence returns. A North America‑focused allocation means outcomes are closely tied to that region’s growth and policy direction. Over the brief period measured, the US market has been strong, which helped performance, but this narrow dataset does not show how the portfolio behaves when other regions lead.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 41%
- Large-cap 31%
- Mid-cap 17%
- Small-cap 4%
- Micro-cap 1%
By market capitalization, the portfolio leans strongly toward mega‑ and large‑cap stocks, with smaller slices in mid‑, small‑, and micro‑caps. Market cap is the total value of a company’s shares and often signals maturity and stability: bigger companies tend to be more diversified businesses with deeper resources, while smaller ones can be more nimble but bumpier. This large‑cap‑heavy profile is consistent with broad index exposure and is generally closer to how global equity markets are weighted. In practice, that often means returns are driven by a relatively small group of very large companies. Given the short time frame, recent moves in big tech and other megacaps likely explain much of the observed outperformance.
True holdings
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 5.64%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AA Apple Inc 5.13%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.78%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.30%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.02%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.83%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.72%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.44%
Part of fund(s):- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
BR Berkshire Hathaway Inc 1.19%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
- Top 10 total 33.89%
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings shows that Microsoft is the standout exposure at nearly 10% of the portfolio when combining the direct stock and its ETF presence. Other large positions include NVIDIA, Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Broadcom, Meta, Tesla, and Berkshire Hathaway, all held indirectly through the index funds. Overlap means a single company’s fortunes can matter more than the headline ETF list suggests. Because only ETF top‑10 data is used, overlap outside these names is probably understated. This hidden clustering around a handful of big US tech‑adjacent names helps explain strong recent returns, but it also means a noticeable dependence on how this relatively small group performs in the future.
Factors
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 data highlights a very high tilt to the quality factor and a very low tilt to the size factor. Factor exposure describes how much a portfolio leans into traits like value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility—think of them as underlying “flavors” that drive behavior. A strong quality tilt usually means more financially robust, profitable companies with solid balance sheets, which historically have often held up better in stress periods. The very low size exposure reflects the heavy emphasis on large and mega‑caps rather than smaller companies. With only a short return history, it’s hard to see how these tilts play out across full cycles, but structurally the portfolio is skewed toward large, high‑quality firms.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 59.59% 56.3% -
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 24.04% 22.1% -
Roundhill Memory ETF
Weight: 4.41% 15.7% -
Microsoft Corporation
Weight: 6.05% 4.3% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 5.91% 1.6%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weights. Here, the two Vanguard index ETFs, together about 84% of the portfolio, account for roughly 78% of total risk, so their influence roughly matches their size. The standout is the small Roundhill Memory ETF: at only 4.4% weight, it contributes over 15% of risk, more than triple its share. That signals a particularly volatile or less‑diversified position. In contrast, the Schwab dividend ETF adds far less risk than its weight suggests. With limited history, these ratios could shift over time, but they already highlight where the portfolio’s day‑to‑day swings are most likely coming from.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationVanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF SharesVanguard S&P 500 ETF
Correlation measures how closely different holdings move together, on a scale from -1 (opposite) to 1 (in lockstep). The data shows that the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF and the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF have moved almost identically over this short period. This is not surprising, since both track broad US equity universes that overlap heavily. High correlation reduces the diversification benefit between holdings: even though there are two separate ETFs, they tend to rise and fall together. With only about a month of observations, the exact correlation number is not very robust, but the structural similarity of these funds suggests they’ll likely stay closely linked in most environments.
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.
The risk‑return chart uses an efficient frontier, which is the curve of best possible returns for each risk level using only the current holdings in different weightings. The portfolio’s Sharpe ratio—return per unit of risk after adjusting for a risk‑free rate—is high over this unusual short period, but the point sits noticeably below the frontier at its risk level. That means, based on recent data, the same ingredients could theoretically be mixed to target better risk‑adjusted results. There’s also a minimum‑variance mix with lower risk but also lower expected return. Since all of this is driven by roughly a month of performance, these optimization insights should be seen as a mathematical snapshot, not a stable long‑term rule.
Dividends
- Microsoft Corporation 0.80%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.30%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.00%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.00%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.08%
The overall indicated dividend yield is modest at about 1.08%, mainly reflecting the broad US market ETFs at around 1% and Microsoft’s sub‑1% yield. The Schwab dividend ETF stands out with a higher yield near 3.3%, but it’s a relatively small piece of the portfolio. Dividend yield is the annual cash payout as a percentage of price, and it can be an important part of total return over long stretches, especially when reinvested. This portfolio’s income profile is more growth‑oriented than income‑heavy, with most return potential coming from price movements. Over the brief observation window, dividends have had almost no visible impact compared with capital gains.
Ongoing product costs
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.03%
Costs in this portfolio are impressively low. The main ETFs charge expense ratios around 0.03%, and even the dedicated dividend fund is just 0.06%, bringing the overall blended fee to roughly 0.03%. The Total Expense Ratio (TER) is the annual fee paid to run each fund, taken directly out of returns, so lower costs leave more of any growth in the investor’s hands. Relative to typical active funds or pricier ETFs, this structure is very cost‑efficient and aligns well with best practices for long‑term compounding. Over many years, even small fee differences can add up meaningfully, so starting from such a low baseline is a structural strength of this portfolio.
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!
Compare your holdings
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.
Help us improve Insightfolio
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey