This portfolio is a straightforward, all‑equity mix built from four broad ETFs. Around 70% is in US large‑cap stocks through a standard S&P 500 fund and a momentum‑tilted S&P 500 fund. Another 20% goes to a global ex‑US index, and 10% to a US small‑cap value fund. So it balances plain market exposure with two “tilted” building blocks that focus on specific styles. Structurally, this is a growth‑oriented setup with no bonds or cash included. That means it leans into long‑term return potential but also fully absorbs equity market ups and downs, with no built‑in buffer from safer assets.
From late 2019 to August 2026, $1,000 invested here grew to about $2,988, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.22%. CAGR is like average speed on a road trip: it smooths the journey into one yearly number. Over the same period, the US market returned 16.37% and the global market 13.97%, so this portfolio outpaced both. The worst drop, or max drawdown, was about ‑34%, very similar to the benchmarks during the 2020 crash. Performance has been strong without taking dramatically more downside than broad markets, but this window includes one big bull run, so it should be seen as informative, not a guarantee.
The Monte Carlo projection uses the portfolio’s historical risk and return to simulate 1,000 different 15‑year futures. Think of it as running many “what if” timelines based on past behavior. The median outcome turns $1,000 into about $2,830, with a wide middle range from roughly $1,833 to $4,266. In the more extreme cases, results span from about $998 to $7,868, and about three‑quarters of simulations end positive. The average simulated annual return of 8.21% is much lower than the recent historical CAGR, reflecting a more conservative expectation. These numbers show the spread of possible paths, not a promise of where the portfolio will end up.
All of this portfolio is invested in stocks, with 100% equity exposure and no allocation to bonds, cash, or alternatives. Asset classes are the broad buckets — like stocks versus bonds — that behave differently in various economic environments. A stock‑only setup typically offers higher growth potential over long periods but can also be more volatile in the short term, especially during recessions or sharp market shocks. Compared with many blended portfolios that mix in lower‑risk assets, this structure is clearly geared toward growth rather than stability. That aligns with the “Growth Investors” label and helps explain the higher risk score of 5 out of 7.
Sector exposure is tilted toward technology at 35%, with financials, industrials, and several other sectors making up smaller but meaningful slices. Tech’s dominance stands out, as broad global benchmarks also have tech as the largest sector but often at a somewhat lower share than this. Sector weights matter because different parts of the economy react differently to interest rates, inflation, and growth cycles. A tech‑heavy profile can benefit strongly when innovation‑driven and growth‑oriented companies lead the market, but it may feel sharper swings when sentiment turns against high‑growth or rate‑sensitive businesses. On the positive side, the portfolio still maintains exposure to a wide range of non‑tech sectors.
Geographically, about 81% of the portfolio sits in North America, with the rest spread across developed Europe, Japan, other developed Asia, and a small slice in emerging markets. Global equity benchmarks usually have the US around 60% of total market value, so this is clearly overweight North America relative to the world. Geography matters because different regions face distinct economic conditions, currencies, and policy environments. A strong US tilt has been rewarded over the past decade, which helps explain this portfolio’s outperformance versus global markets. At the same time, it means most of the economic and currency exposure is anchored to one main region.
By market capitalization, the portfolio leans toward larger companies: about 39% in mega‑caps and 35% in large‑caps, with the rest split across mid, small, and a modest 5% in micro‑caps. Market cap describes company size, and size can influence both risk and return. Larger firms often bring more stability and liquidity, while smaller firms can be more volatile but sometimes offer higher long‑term growth potential. The dedicated 10% allocation to a US small‑cap value ETF is what really drives the exposure to the smaller end of the spectrum. Overall, this mix is anchored in big, established companies, with a deliberate but limited tilt toward smaller ones.
Looking through ETF top‑10 holdings, a few individual stocks appear multiple times, creating hidden concentration. NVIDIA alone represents about 5.65% of the portfolio, while Micron, Broadcom, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, and others each add 1–4%. Because this overlap only considers top‑10 positions, the true repetition is likely higher, though still dominated by large growth‑oriented companies. Overlap matters because owning the same stock via several funds can concentrate risk more than the ETF list suggests. Here, the pattern shows a clear focus on major technology and communication names, which ties back to the portfolio’s tech‑heavy and US‑centric character and can magnify their influence on overall returns.
Factor exposure across value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility is broadly neutral, hovering near the 50% “market‑like” mark. Factors are characteristics, like “cheapness” (value) or recent outperformance (momentum), that academic research links to long‑term return patterns. A neutral profile means the portfolio’s behavior should resemble the broad market rather than leaning strongly into any one style. That’s interesting given the presence of explicit momentum and small‑cap value funds; in combination with the broad S&P 500 and international exposure, these tilts largely cancel out at the total‑portfolio level. As a result, factor risk is fairly balanced, reducing dependence on any single style premium.
Risk contribution shows how much each ETF drives overall ups and downs, which isn’t always the same as its weight. Here, the 40% S&P 500 ETF contributes about 39% of total risk, very much in line with its size. The momentum ETF is 30% of the portfolio but about 32% of risk, and the small‑cap value ETF is 10% of weight and 11% of risk. The top three positions together account for roughly 89% of total risk, which is expected in a four‑holding portfolio. Importantly, no single fund is contributing wildly more risk than its allocation, suggesting the position sizing is broadly consistent with their volatility levels.
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 shows this portfolio sitting on or very close to the efficient frontier, which is the curve of the best achievable returns for each risk level using these four ETFs. The current Sharpe ratio, a measure of return per unit of risk above the risk‑free rate, is 0.7. The optimal mix of the same holdings reaches a Sharpe of 0.93 with slightly higher risk, while the minimum‑variance mix has a slightly lower Sharpe at lower risk. Being near the frontier is a positive sign: it suggests the existing allocation already uses these components in a way that’s broadly efficient, without obvious dead weight in the mix.
The portfolio’s overall dividend yield is about 1.23%, based on yields ranging from 0.7% on the momentum ETF to 2.5% on the international fund. Dividend yield is the annual cash payout as a percentage of the investment value, like interest from a savings account but not guaranteed. At this level, most of the expected total return comes from price changes rather than income. That’s common for growth‑oriented equity portfolios and especially for tech‑heavy allocations, where companies often reinvest profits rather than paying them out. The international fund’s higher yield modestly boosts the overall income stream, but the portfolio remains primarily focused on capital appreciation.
The weighted average ongoing cost, or TER, is a low 0.09%, with individual funds ranging from 0.03% to 0.25%. TER is the annual fee the fund charges, expressed as a percentage of assets, and it quietly reduces returns in the background. Keeping this figure low is helpful because costs compound over time, just like returns do. Compared with many actively managed funds that often charge 0.5–1.0% or more, this fee level is impressively low. That means more of the portfolio’s performance comes from the underlying investments themselves rather than being eaten away by expenses, supporting better long‑term outcomes given the chosen risk level.
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