This portfolio has only about 4 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.
Get this analysis for your own portfolio Paste your holdings — the first report is free and takes about a minute. Analyze mine
All the eggs, one basket
One position is over half of this. Bold. Diversification is optional right up until it isn't.
via GIPHY Roast mode 🔥

Hyperactive US tech rocket with four months of history and the diversification skills of a goldfish

Report created on Aug 15, 2026

Risk profile Info

5/7
Growth
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

2/5
Low Diversity
Less diversification More diversification
Curious how your own portfolio scores? Same analysis, your holdings. First report free — no card needed. Analyze mine

Positions

This “portfolio” is basically an S&P 500 core with a midlife crisis bolted on. Sixty percent is plain vanilla S&P, then you slam on 20% pure momentum, 10% NASDAQ 100, a semiconductor sliver, and some tiny speculative science projects around memory and quantum. It looks less like a plan and more like someone took “US large-cap growth” and kept hitting the turbo button. Structurally, almost everything leans into the same crowded growth playground, just with different branding. With only about four months of data, it’s impossible to say this setup is genius or just lucky, but the composition screams “all-in on what’s been hot recently” rather than any coherent long-term design.

Growth Info

On paper, the recent performance is ridiculous: turning $1,000 into $1,267 in about four months and “CAGR” near 90% looks like cheat-code territory. CAGR (compound annual growth rate) here is basically a speedometer reading taken over one short downhill sprint — it says fast, not sustainable. The portfolio beat both US and global markets handily but with more than double the drawdown. One -11% dip in this tiny window already showed its teeth, and it hasn’t even recovered yet. Past data over four months is like checking the weather since breakfast; technically data, sure, but nobody should base a 20‑year plan on it.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo simulation is basically a math-powered crystal ball that replays alternate futures thousands of times using recent volatility as a guide. Here it spits out a median 15‑year outcome of about $2,706 from $1,000, but the range runs from “barely broke even” to “lottery ticket” territory. With only a few months of history, the model is learning your portfolio’s personality from its highlight reel, not its real life. The aggressive upside and decent 74% chance of a positive result look nice, but they’re built on short, euphoric data that may not survive a full market cycle. Think of this projection as a rough vibe check, not a prophecy.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset class “diversification” here is easy to summarize: 100% stocks, 0% everything else. This is not a portfolio, it’s an equity monolith. No bonds, no alternatives, no ballast — just one big bet that stock markets will handle every storm for the next decade or two. That’s fine if the goal is pure growth and pure drama, but it means every wobble in equities hits full-force. Asset-class mix is usually where people add shock absorbers; this setup just rips them out and says, “Suspension is for cowards.” It’s structurally wired for big swings, and the four-month window hasn’t really tested that yet.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    48%
  • Financials
    10%
  • Telecommunications
    9%
  • Industrials
    8%
  • Health Care
    7%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    7%
  • Consumer Staples
    4%
  • Energy
    3%
  • Utilities
    2%
  • Basic Materials
    1%
  • Real Estate
    1%

Sector-wise, this thing is a tech worship service: 48% in technology, plus growth-heavy areas lurking in “communication” and consumer segments via the underlying indexes. Semiconductors, NASDAQ, and momentum overlays all nudge the whole thing further into the same tech-adjacent zone, even though only part of it is labeled that way. Compared with broad indexes, this is a big step away from balance and toward a single narrative: innovation wins forever. That’s fantastic until innovation stocks collectively remember gravity. Because the historical window is so short — and we’re in a hot tech phase — nothing in the data proves this tilt survives an ugly sector rotation.

Regions Info

  • North America
    95%
  • Asia Developed
    2%
  • Australasia
    2%
  • Europe Developed
    1%

Geography is basically “USA and some accidental rounding errors.” With 95% in North America, the portfolio behaves like the rest of the world barely exists, plus a token sprinkle in Australasia, Asia developed, and Europe for decoration. For a US-based investor, home bias is normal; this is more like home obsession. If the US engine keeps leading, that works out; if it stumbles while other regions run, this setup won’t notice until it shows up in relative underperformance. Four months of strong US-heavy returns don’t prove anything; they just confirm that the portfolio went where the recent party already was and stayed there.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    43%
  • Large-cap
    38%
  • Mid-cap
    16%
  • Small-cap
    1%

Market cap tilt is firmly toward the big kids’ table: about 81% in mega and large caps, with mid-caps as background noise and small caps barely on the radar. This is basically betting that giants will stay giants and that the middle and lower weight classes don’t matter. It makes the portfolio feel safer than it is — large caps can crash too; they just do it with better-known logos. Historically, small and mid caps can behave very differently, but with only months of data, any talk of “factor premium” is just storytelling. For now, it’s just a heavy bet on scale and incumbency, not breadth.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    7.73%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF
    • Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Apple Inc.
    4.69%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Micron Technology Inc
    4.14%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Defiance Quantum ETF
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF
    • Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
    • Roundhill Memory ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    3.86%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF
    • Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    3.17%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    3.16%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    2.64%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    2.57%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • IREN Ltd
    1.50%
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    1.43%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Top 10 total 34.89%

Look-through holdings show the usual suspects hogging the spotlight: NVIDIA at 7.7%, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta — the full Magnificent Whatever ensemble. They show up across multiple ETFs, so the concentration is sneakier than the fund list suggests. The top names are effectively running the show multiple times over, while the smaller, thematic ETFs pretend to diversify but mostly just repackage the same growth narrative with extra buzzwords. And note: this overlap picture is based only on ETF top-10s, so real duplication is probably worse. It’s less “seven funds” and more “the same tech cluster with different marketing decks.”

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
High
Data availability: 12%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 100%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
High
Data availability: 32%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Neutral
Data availability: 2%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 99%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 98%

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.

The factor exposure is a bit of a personality disorder: high value and high momentum with basically zero size tilt. Factors are like the hidden flavors in the investing soup — value, momentum, quality, etc. Here, leaning hard into momentum means chasing recent winners, while simultaneously scoring “high value” suggests someone accidentally mixed “cheap” and “hot” in the same bowl. The very low size exposure means this is almost entirely a big-company game. With only four months of data, factor readings are more “vibe snapshot” than deep truth, but they still scream “pro-cyclic, trend-following, large-cap fan club” rather than a calm, diversified factor recipe.

Risk contribution Info

  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Weight: 60.00%
    32.5%
  • Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
    Weight: 20.00%
    28.7%
  • Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF
    Weight: 5.00%
    12.0%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    Weight: 10.00%
    10.3%
  • Roundhill Memory ETF
    Weight: 2.50%
    9.6%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 93.1%

Risk contribution exposes who’s actually driving the rollercoaster. The 60% S&P core delivers only about a third of total risk, while the 20% momentum ETF punches far above its weight at almost 29%. Semiconductors at 5% contribute 12% of risk, and the tiny 2.5% Roundhill Memory slice somehow throws in nearly 10% of total volatility. That’s the portfolio equivalent of a side character hijacking the plot. Risk contribution is basically asking, “Who’s shaking the boat?” — and the answer is the spicy satellites, not the big core. Over just four months, this already looks jumpy; a full bear market would amplify this imbalance dramatically.

Redundant positions Info

  • Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
    Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF
    High correlation

The high correlation between the semiconductor ETF and the S&P 500 momentum ETF says the quiet part out loud: the supposed satellites are marching in step. Correlation is just how often two things move together; high correlation means that when one faceplants, the other usually joins in. So instead of offsetting each other, these pieces are like two different brands of the same rollercoaster. In a broad risk-off environment, they’re likely to amplify pain, not cancel it out. Over a short four‑month window, correlation can lie, but given how similar the exposures are, this is less hedging and more echo chamber.

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 basically a brutal honesty meter: for a given set of holdings, it shows the best risk/return combos possible just by shuffling weights. Your current mix sits a chunky 5.87 percentage points below that curve at its risk level, with a Sharpe ratio of 2.89 versus 3.5 for the optimal blend. Sharpe is “return per unit of pain,” and this setup is leaving quite a lot of that on the table. Translation: even if nothing new was added, just reweighting these same ingredients could deliver similar or better returns with less drama. For a four-month-tested portfolio, that’s a loud inefficiency flag.

Dividends Info

  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
  • Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF 0.30%
  • Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF 0.70%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.00%
  • Defiance Quantum ETF 0.70%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 0.80%

Dividends here are basically an afterthought. A total yield of 0.8% is what you get when the portfolio is aggressively chasing growth and doesn’t care much about cash flow. The holdings are wired for price action, not regular payouts. That’s perfectly consistent with the tech-and-momentum tilt but means income isn’t doing anything to cushion volatility. In rough markets, dividends can act like a small consolation prize while prices swing; here, that safety blanket is more like a hand towel. Given the ultra-short return history, there’s no track record of how this yield behaves in stress — but it’s definitely not the star of the show.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
  • Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF 0.19%
  • Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF 0.13%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Defiance Quantum ETF 0.40%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.07%

Costs are the one area where this portfolio behaves like a responsible adult. A total TER around 0.07% is impressively low for something this hyperactive-looking. Yes, there are a couple of pricier niche ETFs (hello, 0.40% quantum toy), but the heavy weight in cheap core and mainstream funds drags the overall cost down nicely. It’s like splurging on a couple of cocktails but living mostly on tap water. That said, low fees don’t fix concentration, factor weirdness, or sector overload — they just mean you’re not overpaying for the rollercoaster you chose.

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

Compare your holdings

How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?

DRAM vs SOXQ AVUV vs SPMO AVDV vs VOO QQQM vs SWPPX

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