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

Concentrated US dividend equity portfolio with strong value tilt and modest growth and sustainability themes

Report created on Jun 28, 2026

Risk profile Info

4/7
Balanced
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

2/5
Low Diversity
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio is dominated by a single low-cost US dividend equity ETF, which makes up just under 86% of the total. Around 15% is spread across a handful of active and index mutual funds and smaller ETFs, plus one individual stock position in GameStop. Structurally, this is essentially a one-core-fund portfolio with a few satellite growth and thematic positions around it. That kind of “core and satellite” shape matters because the core holding largely sets the overall portfolio behavior, while the smaller pieces mainly tweak it at the edges. Here, the main ETF drives most of the income, factor tilts, and risk profile, while the other funds add some growth and sustainability angles without changing the overall character dramatically.

Growth Info

Over the period from early 2023 to mid‑2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $1,464. That translates into a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.93%, which is how much it grew per year on average. Over the same stretch, the US broad market and global market did better, with CAGRs near 20% and 18%, so this portfolio lagged both. The maximum drawdown — the deepest peak‑to‑trough drop — was about ‑17%, similar to global markets but slightly milder than the US market. Returns were concentrated in just 16 days, showing that missing a few strong days could have significantly changed the outcome. As always, this history is informative but doesn’t guarantee anything about future performance.

Projection Info

The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which is like running the portfolio through 1,000 alternate futures based on its past behavior. By shuffling and re‑sampling historical returns, it creates a range of possible 15‑year outcomes instead of one single forecast. The median result grows $1,000 to around $2,772, or an annualized 8.26% across all simulations. The “likely range” is wide, from roughly $1,856 to $4,211, and extreme cases stretch further. That spread shows how uncertain long‑term outcomes can be, even when using the same starting portfolio. These numbers are best seen as a rough map of what could happen, not a promise; real markets can be better, worse, or simply different from the patterns seen so far.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

The portfolio is 100% in stocks, with no bonds, cash surrogates, or other asset classes in the mix. That makes it straightforward to understand: all the ups and downs are driven by equities, not by fixed income or alternatives. In many broad benchmarks, you would typically see some balance between stocks and bonds, which can smooth the ride in turbulent markets. A pure‑equity stance means greater sensitivity to economic cycles, earnings, and sentiment but also full participation in equity market growth. Over long horizons this can be rewarding, yet it typically comes with larger swings along the way. The “Balanced” risk classification reflects the overall volatility, but the underlying building blocks here are actually all growth‑oriented assets.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    20%
  • Health Care
    17%
  • Consumer Staples
    16%
  • Energy
    13%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    9%
  • Financials
    8%
  • Industrials
    8%
  • Telecommunications
    6%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    1%
  • Basic Materials
    1%

Sector exposure is spread across several areas, with noticeable weights in technology, health care, consumer staples, and energy. Technology sits around 20%, lower than many broad US indices, while defensive areas like health care and staples together make up about a third, which tends to stabilize earnings through cycles. Energy is also sizable at 13%, which can add cyclicality tied to commodity prices and economic conditions. Compared with typical market benchmarks, this mix looks more defensive and value‑oriented than tech‑heavy growth. That can help during periods when stable cash‑generating businesses are favored, but it may lag during strong growth or innovation‑driven bull markets when higher‑growth sectors dominate index returns.

Regions Info

  • North America
    99%

Geographically, the portfolio is almost entirely concentrated in North America, at about 99%. That means performance is tightly linked to the US and neighboring economies, along with the US dollar. Many global equity benchmarks include a significant share of companies from Europe, Asia, and emerging markets, so this is more regionally focused than a world index. A strong alignment with the US market can be beneficial when US companies outperform, which has often been the case in the last decade. The flip side is that any broad US downturn, policy shift, or currency move could impact nearly the entire portfolio at once. The low diversification score mostly reflects this geographic and structural concentration.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    63%
  • Mid-cap
    26%
  • Small-cap
    4%
  • Mega-cap
    3%
  • Micro-cap
    3%

By market capitalization, the portfolio leans toward large‑cap stocks, which account for about 63%, with mid‑caps around 26% and smaller allocations to small, micro, and mega caps. Large caps are typically more established companies with steadier earnings and deeper trading liquidity, so they often show more stable behavior than very small firms. The presence of mid and small caps adds some growth potential and idiosyncratic movement, especially given the explicit growth and thematic funds included. Compared with a market‑cap weighted US index, this structure is broadly similar but with slightly more presence in smaller names. That can introduce a bit more volatility and dispersion in outcomes without dramatically changing the overall large‑company profile.

True holdings Info

  • Texas Instruments Incorporated
    4.92%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • Qualcomm Incorporated
    4.67%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
    4.66%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • GameStop Corp.
    3.67%
  • The Coca-Cola Company
    3.54%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • Merck & Company Inc
    3.37%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • Chevron Corp
    3.35%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • Procter & Gamble Company
    3.14%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • Amgen Inc
    3.13%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • Verizon Communications Inc
    3.07%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • Top 10 total 37.53%

Looking through to underlying holdings, most of the visible exposure comes from the top ten positions of the main dividend ETF. Names like Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, UnitedHealth, Coca‑Cola, Chevron, and Procter & Gamble each land in the 3–5% range of the portfolio once aggregated. These appear in multiple funds only indirectly, so measured overlap is moderate, but remember the data only covers ETF top tens; any repeated holdings deeper in the portfolios won’t show here. Hidden concentration can arise when the same large, stable companies are held across several dividend or quality‑focused products. GameStop stands out as the only direct single‑stock position, representing 3.67% of the portfolio on its own, separate from these core holdings.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Very high
Data availability: 99%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Neutral
Data availability: 100%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Low
Data availability: 99%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Neutral
Data availability: 99%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
High
Data availability: 96%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
High
Data availability: 100%

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 a very high tilt toward value and strong tilts toward yield and low volatility. Factors are like the underlying “traits” of stocks — value, size, momentum, quality, low volatility, and yield — that research links to long‑term return patterns. An 82% score in value suggests the portfolio heavily favors stocks that look cheap relative to fundamentals. High yield and low volatility scores indicate a preference for income‑paying, steadier companies. Momentum is low, meaning it does not chase recent winners. In practice, such a profile can hold up relatively well in choppier markets where stable, dividend‑paying firms are favored, but it may trail more growth‑oriented or momentum‑driven portfolios during fast‑moving bull phases led by high‑growth names.

Risk contribution Info

  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
    Weight: 85.78%
    79.5%
  • GameStop Corp.
    Weight: 3.67%
    10.2%
  • NEEDHAM AGGRESSIVE GROWTH FUND RETAIL CLASS
    Weight: 2.97%
    3.4%
  • FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND
    Weight: 2.54%
    2.3%
  • Fidelity US Sustainability Index Fund In
    Weight: 2.38%
    2.0%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 97.4%

Risk contribution highlights how much each holding drives overall ups and downs, which can differ a lot from simple weight. The main dividend ETF, at about 86% of the portfolio, contributes around 79% of the total risk, roughly in line with its size. GameStop, however, is only 3.67% by weight but contributes over 10% of the risk — almost three times its share. That reflects its higher volatility: a small, very jumpy instrument can still dominate part of the “noise,” like a loud trumpet in an otherwise calm orchestra. The top three positions together contribute more than 93% of total risk, underscoring how the overall experience is driven primarily by a few key holdings.

Redundant positions Info

  • Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund
    Fidelity US Sustainability Index Fund In
    High correlation

Correlation measures how closely different holdings move together, on a scale from ‑1 to +1. A correlation near +1 means assets often move in the same direction at the same time, limiting diversification benefits. Here, the only pair flagged as moving almost identically is the Fidelity US Sustainability Index Fund and the Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund. That’s not surprising, as both track broad US equity universes with substantial overlap. In practical terms, owning both doesn’t change the risk pattern much versus just owning one; it mostly tweaks holdings and any sustainability tilts. Broader diversification in this portfolio mainly comes from differences in strategy — dividend, growth, thematic — rather than from low correlations between the US‑focused core funds.

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‑return optimization chart compares the current mix with what’s called the efficient frontier. The efficient frontier shows the best return you could have historically achieved at each risk level using only these existing holdings in different weights. Right now, the portfolio’s Sharpe ratio — return per unit of risk, using a 4% risk‑free rate — is 0.69, while the optimal combination reaches 1.38 and the minimum‑variance mix is 0.97. The current portfolio sits about 3.8 percentage points below the efficient frontier at its risk level, which means the same building blocks could have been arranged to deliver higher risk‑adjusted returns. That doesn’t judge the holdings themselves; it just shows the present weighting isn’t mathematically “efficient” based on past data.

Dividends Info

  • Tidal ETF Trust II - Carbon Collective Climate Solutions U.S. Equity ETF 0.60%
  • FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND 1.70%
  • Fidelity US Sustainability Index Fund In 1.00%
  • NEEDHAM AGGRESSIVE GROWTH FUND RETAIL CLASS 1.40%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 2.50%
  • Sprott Energy Transition Materials ETF 1.50%
  • Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund 1.00%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 2.28%

The overall dividend yield of the portfolio is about 2.28%, driven mainly by the large Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF, which yields roughly 2.5%. The growth and thematic funds contribute lower yields, as they tend to focus more on reinvested earnings and future expansion than on current income. Dividends matter because they provide a tangible cash return, which can be taken out or reinvested to compound over time. Historically, dividends have been a meaningful part of total equity returns, especially in more mature, value‑oriented companies. In this portfolio, the yield is a bit higher than broad US market levels, aligning well with its value and low‑volatility factor tilts and reinforcing its identity as an income‑tilted equity strategy.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Tidal ETF Trust II - Carbon Collective Climate Solutions U.S. Equity ETF 0.35%
  • FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND FIDELITY BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND 0.61%
  • Fidelity US Sustainability Index Fund In 0.11%
  • NEEDHAM AGGRESSIVE GROWTH FUND RETAIL CLASS 1.64%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • Sprott Energy Transition Materials ETF 0.65%
  • Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund 0.02%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.12%

The cost profile is impressively low overall, with a weighted ongoing fee (Total TER) around 0.12% per year. That’s largely thanks to the heavy use of low‑cost core funds like the Schwab dividend ETF and S&P 500 index fund, which charge 0.06% and 0.02% respectively. There are a couple of higher‑fee active funds, such as the Needham Aggressive Growth Fund at 1.64%, but their small weights keep their drag on the total cost limited. Fees act like a headwind: even small percentage differences compound meaningfully over decades. Here, the low blended TER supports better long‑term compounding and aligns well with cost‑conscious investing practices, especially given the strong influence of broadly diversified, low‑fee vehicles in the mix.

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