Highly concentrated tech driven portfolio with strong past returns and significant single stock risk
Report created on May 9, 2026Risk profile
6/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation
NVDA - US67066G1040 23.81% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 21.49% -
TS Tesla Inc
TSLA - US88160R1014 18.86% -
AA Apple Inc
AAPL - US0378331005 14.62% -
AS ASML Holding NV ADR
ASML - USN070592100 10.98% -
ME Meta Platforms Inc.
META - US30303M1027 4.91% -
MS Microsoft Corporation
MSFT - US5949181045 4.83% -
AM Amazon.com Inc
AMZN - US0231351067 0.50%
This portfolio is made up of eight individual stocks plus one broad US equity ETF, with everything in stocks. A few big names dominate: NVIDIA, Tesla, Apple, ASML, and the S&P 500 ETF together account for almost 90% of the total weight. That means the portfolio’s behaviour is mainly tied to a small group of large, growth‑oriented companies. A structure like this can deliver very strong gains when those names do well, but it also means the portfolio’s ups and downs are tightly linked to the fortunes of just a handful of businesses. This composition explains both the impressive historical returns and the aggressive risk rating and low diversification score.
Growth
Historically, the portfolio has grown a hypothetical $1,000 into about $68,240 over the period shown, an extremely high compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 52.75%. CAGR is the “average yearly speed” of growth over time. This comfortably beat both the US market and global market CAGRs by a wide margin. The flip side is a deep max drawdown of about -56%, meaning the portfolio was once more than halved from peak to trough. It took over a year to bottom and another six months to recover. That pattern — huge long‑term growth but very sharp drops — is typical of concentrated, growth‑heavy portfolios.
Projection
The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which basically re‑mixes past returns thousands of times to imagine many possible future paths. In these simulations, the median outcome turns $1,000 into around $2,717 over 15 years, with a wide “likely” range from roughly $1,848 to $4,168. The overall average annualized return across all scenarios is about 8.09%, but there’s still a meaningful spread: some paths barely grow, while a few grow a lot. This highlights that even with strong historical performance, future outcomes can vary widely. Simulations rely on past volatility and returns, so they’re useful for understanding risk, but not promises of what will happen.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of the portfolio sits in a single asset class: equities. There is no allocation to bonds, cash, or alternatives. Being 100% in stocks typically increases both potential long‑term growth and the size of short‑term swings, because there’s nothing more defensive in the mix to smooth the ride during market stress. Many broad market benchmarks combine different asset classes, so compared with those, this portfolio is structurally higher risk. The aggressive risk classification and low diversification score line up with this picture. Any changes in stock markets feed directly into portfolio value, since there’s no offsetting exposure to less volatile asset classes.
Sectors
- Technology 61%
- Consumer Discretionary 22%
- Telecommunications 7%
- Financials 3%
- Health Care 2%
- Industrials 2%
- Consumer Staples 1%
- Energy 1%
- Utilities 1%
Sector-wise, the portfolio is heavily tilted toward technology, at about 61%, with another large slice in consumer discretionary names, many of which are also growth‑oriented. Smaller exposures are scattered across other sectors via the S&P 500 ETF, but they only contribute modest diversification. Compared with broad market indices, this is a much more tech‑concentrated mix. Tech‑heavy portfolios often benefit when innovation and growth stories are in favour, but they can be hit hard when interest rates rise or when sentiment turns against high‑growth companies. The sector data confirms that most of the portfolio’s risk and return is driven by a narrow set of growth‑focused industries.
Regions
- North America 89%
- Europe Developed 11%
Geographically, about 89% of the portfolio is tied to North America, with the remaining 11% in developed Europe, largely through ASML. Compared with global equity benchmarks, which spread more across many regions, this is a strong US‑tilt. A high US focus has been beneficial over the last decade, as US markets and mega‑cap names have led global returns. The trade‑off is that economic, regulatory, or currency shocks specific to the US would strongly influence this portfolio. The smaller European slice helps a bit, but most of the behaviour is still linked to the US market environment and policy conditions.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 88%
- Large-cap 8%
- Mid-cap 4%
By market capitalization, the portfolio is dominated by mega‑cap companies, with about 88% in the very largest firms, plus a small allocation to large‑ and mid‑caps. Mega‑caps tend to be more established businesses with deep markets and broad analyst coverage, so they can sometimes be less volatile than smaller companies. However, when those mega‑caps are also high‑growth and highly valued, they can still show big swings. Compared with a more size‑balanced portfolio, this structure places more emphasis on the performance of a small group of global giants. The very low “size” factor exposure later ties in with this strong tilt toward the biggest stocks.
True holdings
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 0.64%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 0.56%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 0.52%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 86.01%
The look‑through view shows that several companies appear both as direct holdings and inside the S&P 500 ETF. NVIDIA, Tesla, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon all have extra weight via the ETF, pushing total exposures above their direct positions. For example, NVIDIA’s total stake rises from 23.81% directly to about 25.44% including the ETF slice, and Tesla’s from 18.86% to 19.26%. This overlap creates hidden concentration: it looks like the ETF diversifies, but for these names it actually tops up their weights. Since only ETF top‑10 holdings are captured, the true overlap for smaller names is probably understated, reinforcing how focused this portfolio really is.
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.
Looking at factor exposure, the standout tilt is very low “size” at 14%, meaning the portfolio leans strongly toward larger companies compared with a market‑average mix. Factor exposure is like checking which “traits” — such as value or momentum — the holdings share. A strong large‑cap tilt often means performance will be closely linked to the biggest, most liquid names that dominate major indices. There are also low readings on value, yield, and low volatility, and high quality, which paints a picture of growth‑oriented, higher‑quality mega‑caps rather than cheaper or high‑income stocks. In markets where large growth companies lead, this kind of factor profile can amplify returns, but it may lag if smaller or value‑oriented stocks take the lead.
Risk contribution
-
NVIDIA Corporation
Weight: 23.81% 33.4% -
Tesla Inc
Weight: 18.86% 27.6% -
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 21.49% 10.7% -
ASML Holding NV ADR
Weight: 10.98% 10.5% -
Apple Inc
Weight: 14.62% 10.4% - Top 5 risk contribution 92.5%
Risk contribution measures how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. NVIDIA is about 23.8% of the portfolio but contributes roughly a third of total risk. Tesla, at 18.9% weight, adds around 27.6% of the risk. Together with the S&P 500 ETF, the top three positions account for more than 70% of overall volatility. The ETF, despite a similar weight to NVIDIA, contributes only about 10.7% of risk, showing how individual high‑volatility stocks can punch above their size. This concentration means portfolio behaviour is heavily dictated by how NVIDIA and Tesla in particular perform.
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 vs. return chart compares the current portfolio with an “efficient frontier” built from the same holdings. The Sharpe ratio — a measure of return per unit of risk — is about 1.19 for the current mix, versus 1.39 for the optimal combination and 0.83 for the minimum variance option. The current portfolio sits roughly 1.96 percentage points below the frontier at its risk level, meaning there are alternative weightings of these same assets that would have delivered better risk‑adjusted returns historically. In other words, without changing what’s held, a different balance between positions could have moved the portfolio closer to the efficient frontier.
Dividends
- Apple Inc 0.40%
- ASML Holding NV ADR 0.60%
- Meta Platforms Inc. 0.30%
- Microsoft Corporation 0.80%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.41%
Dividend yield is low overall, at around 0.41% for the portfolio. Several of the main stocks either pay very small dividends or focus more on reinvesting earnings for growth. Yield measures the annual cash payments as a percentage of price, and higher yields can provide a steadier income stream. Here, dividends are a relatively minor part of total return; most of the historical performance has come from price appreciation in the underlying stocks. This income profile is typical of growth‑tilted, mega‑cap tech and consumer names, where investors generally look more to capital gains than to regular cash payouts.
Ongoing product costs
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.01%
On the cost side, the picture is very positive. The only fund in the portfolio, the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, has a very low total expense ratio (TER) of 0.03%, and the blended portfolio TER comes out to about 0.01%. TER is the annual fee charged by a fund as a percentage of assets, and lower costs mean more of the portfolio’s returns stay in the investor’s pocket. Since individual stocks don’t have ongoing management fees, the overall cost structure is impressively low and aligns well with best practices for long‑term investing. Over many years, this cost advantage can add up meaningfully.
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!
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