This portfolio has only about 7 months of historical data, based on the youngest asset in the portfolio. Some metrics, projections, and AI insights may be less reliable and should be interpreted with caution.

Concentrated US growth portfolio with strong quality tilt and limited history driving impressive early gains

Report created on Apr 17, 2026

Risk profile Info

5/7
Growth
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

2/5
Low Diversity
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio is almost entirely in US-focused growth equities, split mainly across three broad index funds plus a single financial stock. Around a third sits in a Nasdaq-focused ETF, with another large slice in a growth ETF and a core S&P 500 index fund. A modest position in a total US market ETF adds some breadth, while a small money market fund provides a tiny liquidity cushion. Because everything is broadly tied to the same equity market, the structure leans heavily into stock market growth rather than balance. With only about seven months of data, it’s too early to treat this mix as battle-tested, but it clearly targets capital growth over stability.

Growth Info

Over the roughly seven-month window, $1,000 grew to about $1,132, which translates into a very high annualized CAGR above 200%. CAGR, or Compound Annual Growth Rate, is like an average yearly speed over a road trip. This pace is stronger than the US market proxy but slightly behind the global market, with a modest max drawdown around -6.5%, which is quite contained for such a growthy mix. However, this period is short and unusually strong for risk assets, so these numbers are not reliable guides to the long run. A key point: just three days made up 90% of returns, underlining how timing and luck heavily shaped this track record.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection uses past volatility and return patterns to simulate thousands of possible 15-year paths for a $1,000 investment, a bit like running many “what if” market scenarios. The median outcome lands around $2,716, with most simulations falling roughly between $1,809 and $4,190, and an overall average annualized return near 8%. About three-quarters of the runs end positive. Still, these results lean heavily on less than a year of unusually strong performance, which makes the model less trustworthy. Projections should be read as a rough range of what could happen, not a forecast of what will happen, especially for a growth-tilted portfolio like this.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    95%
  • No data
    5%

About 95% of the portfolio sits in stocks, with a small portion labeled “no data” and a modest money market slice inside that bucket. This is a classic growth-leaning structure: heavily tilted toward equities, with very little ballast from safer asset classes. High stock exposure can be powerful for long time horizons because it captures more of the market’s upside, but it also means deeper drawdowns when markets fall. The low diversification score reflects that nearly everything is exposed to the same broad risk: equity markets. With only seven months of history, the full downside behavior hasn’t really shown up yet, so expectations around future volatility should stay conservative.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    37%
  • Financials
    19%
  • Telecommunications
    12%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    7%
  • Health Care
    5%
  • Consumer Staples
    4%
  • Industrials
    4%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    2%
  • Energy
    1%
  • Utilities
    1%
  • Basic Materials
    1%
  • Real Estate
    1%

Sector-wise, technology dominates at about 37%, with financials close behind thanks in part to the sizable Bank of New York Mellon position. Telecommunications and consumer-related areas also show up meaningfully, while other sectors like energy, utilities, and real estate are relatively small. Compared with broad market benchmarks, this is a more tech- and growth-heavy profile, which tends to be more sensitive to interest rates, innovation cycles, and market sentiment around high-growth companies. This tilt has helped in the recent strong environment, but tech-heavy portfolios can swing harder in policy shifts or when investors rotate toward more defensive areas. The recent short history hasn’t captured a full rate or sector rotation cycle yet.

Regions Info

  • North America
    94%
  • Europe Developed
    1%

Geographically, the portfolio is overwhelmingly concentrated in North America at about 94%, with only a tiny fraction in developed Europe and effectively no meaningful exposure elsewhere. That’s quite different from global benchmarks, where other regions make up a much larger share of total market value. A heavy US focus can benefit from strong performance in that market, as seen recently, but it also ties outcomes closely to a single economy, political framework, and currency. Over a full cycle, other regions can sometimes outperform, so this home bias reduces diversification benefits. With just seven months of data, the impact of regional differences hasn’t really had time to show up in the numbers.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    44%
  • Large-cap
    40%
  • Mid-cap
    11%
  • Small-cap
    1%

By market cap, the portfolio is dominated by mega- and large-cap companies, with smaller slices in mid- and a minimal exposure to small caps. This lines up closely with broad US index construction, where the largest companies naturally take up most of the weight. Mega-caps tend to be more established and often more liquid, which can provide some stability relative to smaller, more speculative names. However, it also means limited exposure to the potentially higher long-term growth (and risk) of smaller companies. So far, the big-cap bias has worked well in this brief period, but historically leadership can rotate between large and small companies across different market cycles.

True holdings Info

  • The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
    14.58%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    6.21%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Apple Inc
    5.46%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Microsoft Corporation
    4.06%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Amazon.com Inc
    2.82%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    2.56%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Broadcom Inc
    2.24%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    2.21%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    2.18%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Tesla Inc
    1.97%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Top 10 total 44.28%

Looking through the funds, familiar mega-cap names drive a lot of the underlying exposure: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Broadcom, Tesla, plus the direct stake in Bank of New York Mellon. Several of these appear in multiple index products, which quietly concentrates risk even though the portfolio looks diversified on the surface. Because only top-10 ETF holdings are captured, actual overlap is probably higher than shown. This kind of hidden concentration means big swings in a handful of companies can move the entire portfolio quite a bit. With such limited history, that concentration hasn’t been fully stress-tested across different market cycles yet.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Low
Data availability: 70%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 75%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Very high
Data availability: 70%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Very high
Data availability: 15%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Low
Data availability: 100%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 75%

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 strong tilt toward momentum (80%) and quality (87%), combined with very low size exposure (2%), meaning a big lean toward large, profitable companies that have been recent winners. Factor investing looks at these traits—like value, momentum, and quality—as return “ingredients” identified by decades of academic research. A high momentum tilt often does well in trending bull markets but can hurt in sharp reversals. Strong quality exposure usually cushions drawdowns somewhat because these companies have healthier balance sheets and profits. The low size score confirms the limited small-cap exposure. Since this factor profile is built on a short, strong period for quality growth names, future behavior could look very different when market leadership changes.

Risk contribution Info

  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    Weight: 32.92%
    37.9%
  • Fidelity 500 Index Fund
    Weight: 19.92%
    19.7%
  • The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
    Weight: 14.58%
    18.5%
  • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    Weight: 22.11%
    18.2%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Weight: 5.77%
    5.6%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 100.0%

Risk contribution—how much each position drives the portfolio’s ups and downs—shows that the Nasdaq ETF, S&P 500 fund, and Bank of New York Mellon together generate over three-quarters of total risk. The Nasdaq ETF, at about one-third of the weight, contributes closer to 38% of risk, reflecting its growth and tech tilt. Bank of New York Mellon is especially notable: it’s roughly 15% of the portfolio but adds about 19% of the risk, indicating concentrated single-stock exposure. By contrast, the Vanguard growth ETF pulls slightly less risk than its weight suggests. Over time, adjusting position sizes can bring risk contributions more in line with comfort levels, but that’s hard to calibrate off only seven months of performance.

Redundant positions Info

  • Fidelity 500 Index Fund
    Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    High correlation

The core equity funds—Nasdaq 100, S&P 500, and the total US market ETF—move almost identically based on historical correlation. Correlation measures how often assets move together; when it’s high, they tend to go up and down in sync, which limits diversification. Here, the overlapping exposures mean that even though there are several funds, they’re largely riding the same underlying market wave. In a strong rally, that can amplify gains, as seen in the recent period. But in a broad US equity downturn, all three are likely to fall together, offering little protection. The short history may actually understate how correlated they can become during real stress events.

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 efficient frontier analysis suggests the current mix sits well below the best achievable risk–return trade-off using these same holdings. The Sharpe ratio—return per unit of risk, like miles per gallon for investing—is strong at about 4.4 but notably lower than the optimal mix’s 6.6 based on the short sample. Being below the frontier means that, in theory, reweighting between existing positions could improve expected returns or reduce risk without adding new assets. However, these numbers are based on less than a year of unusually high returns, which makes the frontier itself shaky. It’s useful directionally, but not something to treat as a precise map for long-term allocation decisions.

Dividends Info

  • The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation 1.50%
  • Fidelity 500 Index Fund 1.10%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.10%
  • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares 0.40%
  • Fidelity® Government Money Market Fund 2.00%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 0.85%

The overall dividend yield of around 0.85% is modest, which is typical for a growth-tilted, large-cap US portfolio. Dividends are the cash payouts companies make to shareholders, and over long horizons they can be a meaningful part of total return. Here, most of the expected return is coming from price appreciation rather than income, although the money market fund currently yields about 2% and the financial stock and broad indices add a bit more. For someone focused on long-term growth, this lower yield can be perfectly fine. With only a few months of data, though, it’s worth remembering that yields and payout policies can shift as interest rates and company fundamentals change.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.02%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
  • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares 0.04%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%

The total expense ratio (TER) of roughly 0.06% across the investable funds is impressively low. TER is the annual fee charged by a fund, like a small haircut from your account each year. Keeping costs down is one of the few things investors can reliably control, and these levels compare very favorably with typical active funds or higher-fee ETFs. Over decades, even a difference of 0.3–0.5% a year can add up significantly. Here, the low cost structure supports better long-term performance if markets cooperate. That said, low fees don’t remove market risk, and with only seven months of history, performance so far says more about the market environment than about fee efficiency.

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