This portfolio is a simple three-ETF setup with 100% in equities. About half sits in a broad US equity ETF, four-tenths in an American Century equity ETF, and the remaining tenth in a US small-cap value ETF. So structurally it’s a concentrated-fund list but still holds thousands of underlying companies. A focused lineup like this is easier to understand and monitor compared with a long list of overlapping funds. The mix leans toward US stocks with a dedicated slice to smaller, cheaper companies via the small-cap value ETF. That tilt can make returns behave differently from a plain market index, especially over shorter periods when styles move in and out of favor.
From June 2023 to April 2026, $1,000 grew to $1,710, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 21.07%. CAGR is the “smooth” average yearly growth, like calculating average speed on a road trip. Over this stretch the portfolio slightly beat both the US and global equity markets by about 1 percentage point per year. The worst peak-to-trough drop was -16.57%, a fairly sharp but manageable equity drawdown that recovered in about a month after bottoming. That behavior is consistent with a fully stock-based portfolio. It’s important to remember that this period includes a strong run for equities; past returns at this pace should not be expected as a baseline for the future.
The Monte Carlo projection uses past return and volatility patterns to simulate 1,000 different 15‑year paths for a $1,000 investment. Think of it as rolling the dice on many possible market histories based on what has happened before, not predicting a single future. The median outcome lands around $2,637, with a wide “typical” range between roughly $1,758 and $4,149. There’s about a 72% chance of ending above the starting amount. An average simulated annual return near 8% is much lower than recent history, showing how forward-looking expectations are more modest. These simulations are still just models: real markets can deliver outcomes outside even the 5–95% range.
All of the portfolio is invested in stocks, with no bonds, cash substitutes, or alternative assets in the mix. That makes growth potential higher over long horizons but also means there is no built-in stabilizer from fixed income during equity selloffs. Many broad benchmarks include at least some lower-risk assets when targeting more conservative profiles, so this portfolio is more “equity pure” than a typical balanced mix. The upside is structural simplicity and full participation in stock market gains. The trade-off is that any large equity downturn flows straight through to the portfolio, since there is no other asset class to offset stocks when they fall together.
Sector exposure is spread across the economy, with the largest slices in financials, technology, and industrials, followed by consumer and energy areas. No single sector dominates, and the distribution looks reasonably balanced versus broad equity benchmarks, which often have similar leaders but sometimes more tech concentration. This alignment with common sector weights is a strong indicator of healthy diversification: shocks to one part of the market are less likely to overwhelm the whole portfolio. At the same time, a meaningful technology and communication presence means performance can still be sensitive to innovation cycles and interest-rate shifts that affect growth-oriented companies more sharply.
Geographically, about 63% of exposure is in North America, with the rest spread across developed Europe, Japan, other developed Asia, and several emerging regions. This creates a clear home bias toward the US but still leaves over a third allocated internationally. Compared with a global market index, which often has a slightly lower US share, this portfolio is modestly US‑tilted. That tilt has worked well in the recent decade as US equities outperformed many other regions. However, it also ties the portfolio more closely to one economy, currency, and policy environment, so big shifts in US markets or the dollar can significantly drive overall returns.
By market capitalization, the portfolio spans the full spectrum: roughly a quarter in mega‑caps, another quarter in large‑caps, a quarter in mid‑caps, and the rest in small and micro‑caps. This is broader than many cap‑weighted indices that tend to be dominated by mega and large companies. Smaller companies often have higher growth potential but more volatile and cyclical earnings, so they can swing more in both directions. Having a meaningful small and micro allocation adds diversification because these businesses don’t always move in lockstep with giants. It also makes results more sensitive to economic cycles and liquidity conditions that particularly affect smaller firms.
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, several large US growth names appear, including NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Broadcom. Each individual exposure is small, mostly around 1–3% of the total portfolio, and comes only via the funds rather than any direct single‑stock positions. The overlap in these big names suggests a modest but not extreme concentration in leading technology and platform companies. Because only ETF top‑10 positions are captured, overall overlap is likely a bit higher than shown. Still, the dispersion across many companies, plus value and small‑cap tilts, helps prevent these giants from completely dominating the portfolio’s behavior.
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 clear tilt toward value at 75% and a notable tilt toward quality at 61%, with size, momentum, yield, and low volatility all near neutral. Factors are like underlying “traits” of stocks — such as cheapness (value) or financial strength (quality) — that research links to long‑term returns. A high value tilt means the portfolio leans toward companies trading at lower prices relative to fundamentals, which can lag during growth booms but may hold up better when expensive stocks reset. A high quality tilt points to firms with stronger balance sheets or profitability, which often prove more resilient in stress periods but may underperform in speculative rallies.
Risk contribution shows how much each ETF drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weight. The main US equity ETF is 50% of assets and contributes about 51% of risk, very much in line with its size. The American Century ETF is 40% of the portfolio but adds only about 36% of total risk, suggesting slightly lower volatility or partial offset versus the other funds. The small‑cap value ETF is 10% by weight yet contributes nearly 13% of risk, reflecting its more volatile small‑company focus. This pattern is typical: smaller, value‑tilted stocks often punch above their weight in driving day‑to‑day swings.
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.
On the risk–return chart, the current portfolio sits below the efficient frontier by about 1.18 percentage points at its risk level. The efficient frontier represents the best possible return for each level of volatility using only the existing holdings but in different weightings. Sharpe ratio, which measures return per unit of risk above the risk‑free rate, is 1.12 for the current mix versus 1.42 for both the optimal and minimum‑variance portfolios. That gap suggests that, historically, a different combination of the same three ETFs could have delivered either similar returns with lower volatility or higher returns for comparable risk. No new assets are required for that improvement — it’s purely about internal weighting.
The overall dividend yield is 1.83%, blended from roughly 3.0% on the American Century ETF and about 1–1.3% on the Avantis funds. Dividend yield is the annual cash payout as a percentage of current value, like interest on a savings account but not guaranteed. In this case, income is a modest part of total return, with most growth historically coming from price appreciation rather than payouts. That’s typical for diversified equity portfolios with a tilt toward quality and value but still plenty of growth exposure. Reinvesting these dividends can quietly boost long‑term compounding, even if the headline yield looks relatively low on its own.
The total expense ratio (TER) for the portfolio is about 0.24% per year, based on the underlying ETF fees of 0.15%, 0.25%, and 0.34%. TER is the ongoing cost charged by funds, taken directly from returns rather than as a separate bill. This overall cost level is competitive and well within the low‑fee range for actively tilted or factor‑aware equity strategies. Lower costs matter because they compound over time: every dollar not spent on fees stays invested and can grow. Here, costs are impressively low relative to the portfolio’s complexity and factor tilts, providing a solid structural advantage for long‑term performance compared with higher‑fee alternatives.
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