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

One stock obsession meets tech tunnel vision with a bonus side quest in random small caps

Report created on Jul 16, 2026

Risk profile Info

5/7
Growth
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

3/5
Moderately Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio is basically “Big Technologies and friends.” One stock hogs a third of the money, the next two positions push total risk concentration over the top, and then there’s a long tail of tiny bets that look more like souvenirs than a strategy. Calling this “moderately diversified” is generous; it’s one main idea with some decorative clutter. Structurally, it behaves less like a portfolio and more like a single-stock gamble wrapped in an ETF comfort blanket. The mix suggests conviction without guardrails: if that lead position sneezes, the entire portfolio catches pneumonia. The rest of the holdings mostly exist to make the pie chart look less embarrassing.

Growth Info

For all that drama, the performance is… underwhelming. A 10.41% CAGR from April 2024 to July 2026 isn’t bad in isolation, but it lags both the US and global markets by 5–6 percentage points per year. CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is basically your average speed on this road trip; you’re flooring it emotionally but cruising in the slow lane mathematically. The max drawdown of -34.63% versus -21–23% for the benchmarks shows you’re eating more pain for less gain. Needing 11 months to crawl back just to where you were is a long hangover for a party that didn’t even beat the neighbors.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projections are like running your portfolio through 1,000 alternate universes, and the result is: decent odds, messy payoffs. Median outcome of €2,630 after 15 years sounds fine, but the “possible range” of €904 to €8,220 is basically “anything from mildly disappointing to lottery winner.” An 8.11% average simulated return with this kind of volatility is like driving a sports car in first gear: noise and risk are high, but forward progress isn’t keeping up. And remember, these simulations are just past behavior remixed with randomness — yesterday’s weather forecast extended 15 years into the future.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    98%
  • Bonds
    2%

Asset class breakdown: 98% stocks, 2% bonds, so this is effectively an all‑equities rollercoaster with a tiny bond mascot standing in the corner. The “growth investor” label checks out — this thing clearly isn’t trying to be balanced or steady. The problem is not that it’s risky; it’s that the risk budget is being spent in the least efficient way. When you go almost all‑in on stocks, the upside should at least try to justify the grey hairs. Here, the portfolio manages to combine equity-level volatility with index-behind returns, which is kind of the worst of both worlds.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    68%
  • Industrials
    7%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    6%
  • Basic Materials
    6%
  • Financials
    6%
  • Health Care
    1%
  • Telecommunications
    1%
  • Energy
    1%
  • Real Estate
    1%
  • Consumer Staples
    1%
  • Utilities
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Sector exposure screams tech addiction: 68% in technology, with everything else playing supporting roles. That’s not a tilt; that’s a lifestyle choice. It’s like building a diet around energy drinks and calling the occasional Coca‑Cola your “diversifier.” The smaller slices in industrials, consumer discretionary, and basic materials are nice, but they’re rounding errors next to the tech stack. When one sector dominates this hard, the portfolio’s fate is basically tied to one macro story — if that theme stalls, the whole structure looks wobbly. It’s less “diversified sector portfolio,” more “tech fund with a side salad.”

Regions Info

  • North America
    56%
  • Europe Developed
    41%
  • Japan
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Geographically, this thing is a North America–Europe duet: 56% North America, 41% developed Europe, and a lonely 1% in Japan to prove someone has heard of Asia. There’s an impressive commitment to ignoring the rest of the world. For a global market that’s spread widely, this portfolio behaves like there are only two time zones that matter. The downside is tying performance to a narrow economic and policy cluster instead of letting genuinely global growth do more of the work. It’s not the worst bias ever, but it’s definitely “investing with a half-finished world map.”

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    37%
  • Small-cap
    33%
  • Large-cap
    19%
  • Mid-cap
    8%
  • Micro-cap
    2%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

The market cap mix is surprisingly chaotic: 37% mega‑caps, 19% large, 8% mid, 33% small, and even 2% micro. So you’ve got trillion‑dollar giants sharing space with companies that can probably fit their staff in a single meeting room. The issue isn’t variety; it’s coherence. The mega‑caps bring stability and index-like behavior, while the small and micro pieces inject lottery-ticket volatility without much actual influence on overall performance, given their tiny weights. It feels like a serious portfolio that got impulsive at the edges and sprinkled in some “just for fun” positions that do more for excitement than for risk-adjusted returns.

True holdings Info

  • BIG TECHNOLOGIES LS-10
    32.57%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    11.58%
  • Lockheed Martin Corporation
    4.87%
  • Apple Inc
    4.50%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    2.90%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
    • iShares S&P 500 USD Information Technology Sector UCITS
  • Apple Inc.
    2.54%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
    • iShares S&P 500 USD Information Technology Sector UCITS
  • BlackRock, Inc.
    2.48%
  • Amazon.com Inc
    2.44%
  • VERBIO Vereinigte BioEnergie AG
    2.36%
  • Tesla Inc
    2.11%
  • Top 10 total 68.35%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

The look‑through holdings reveal the real comedy: NVIDIA and Apple show up twice — directly and again via ETFs. NVIDIA totals 14.48% exposure, Apple 7.04%, even though the direct weights pretend to be lower. That’s the hidden overlap problem: owning the stock and then owning the index that owns the stock, then acting surprised when one company drives more of the show than expected. Big Technologies at 32.57% is pure, undiluted concentration, not even masked by ETFs. This isn’t diversification; it’s cosplay. The ETFs try to smooth things out, but the individual stock bets pull the portfolio straight back into single‑idea territory.

Risk contribution Info

  • BIG TECHNOLOGIES LS-10
    Weight: 32.57%
    61.4%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    Weight: 11.58%
    13.5%
  • iShares S&P 500 USD Information Technology Sector UCITS
    Weight: 11.06%
    7.7%
  • iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
    Weight: 13.90%
    5.6%
  • Apple Inc
    Weight: 4.50%
    2.0%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 90.2%

Risk contribution is where the mask fully falls off. Big Technologies is 32.57% of the weight but 61.38% of total portfolio risk — that one position is basically the main character and everyone else is background extras. The top three holdings together generate 82.64% of total risk, so the remaining twenty‑plus names mostly exist to make the holding list long. Risk contribution measures who’s actually shaking the portfolio, not who merely appears on the statement, and here one stock is doing the volatility heavy lifting. This is not a “growth portfolio with a strong conviction”; it’s one aggressive bet pretending to be a diversified plan.

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 efficient frontier chart is absolutely brutal. Your current Sharpe ratio is 0.52 with 21.84% risk, while the optimal mix of the *same holdings* hits a Sharpe of 2.14 with just 6.41% risk. The efficient frontier is basically the “best possible trade-off curve” using what you already own, and this portfolio sits a painful 23.96 percentage points below that line at its risk level. Translation: same ingredients, dramatically better meal is possible; you just chose the most chaotic recipe. Even the minimum variance blend, with 1.68% risk, has a Sharpe of 1.49, making the current setup look like someone randomized the weights for fun.

Dividends Info

  • Merck KGaA 1.60%

Dividends are essentially a non-story here. The only yield number even mentioned is 1.60% from Merck KGaA, and at a 0.22% position size that’s basically a rounding error. This portfolio clearly isn’t trying to generate income; it’s chasing capital gains via growth and momentum-heavy names. Nothing wrong with that as a concept, but it does mean the portfolio has no built-in “payout comfort” when markets get rough. When prices fall, there isn’t much in the way of steady cash flows to soften the blow — it’s almost entirely reliant on price appreciation showing up eventually and behaving itself.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR 0.20%
  • iShares S&P 500 USD Information Technology Sector UCITS 0.15%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.04%

Costs are the one area where this portfolio isn’t shooting itself in the foot. TERs of 0.20% and 0.15% on the ETFs lead to a blended Total TER of about 0.04%, which is impressively low. That’s “you actually read the factsheet” territory. The irony is that the fee side is run like a well-oiled machine while the risk and concentration side looks like a dare. You’re not overpaying the fund providers; you’re just not getting much efficiency out of the risks you are taking. Fees aren’t the villain here — the structure and weight choices are doing that job.

What next?

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