This portfolio has only about 3 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

Concentrated global equity mix with high risk score and very limited historical performance data

Report created on Apr 6, 2026

Risk profile Info

7/7
Speculative
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

3/5
Moderately Diversified
Less diversification More diversification
Curious how your own portfolio scores? Same analysis, your holdings. First report free — no card needed. Analyze mine

Positions

The portfolio is a three‑fund, 100% equity setup: a broad global core equity fund dominates at 70%, a UK large‑cap tracker adds 20%, and a 10% slice goes to global small‑cap value. With only three positions, structure is simple but concentration is high in the core holding. A pure‑equity mix like this is typically more volatile than blends that include bonds or cash. Given the short three‑month data window, it’s important not to assume this current mix will always behave the same way. For someone comfortable with ups and downs, this type of structure can be a solid growth‑oriented base, but it leaves little built‑in cushion during sharp market drops.

Growth Info

Over the roughly three‑month window, £1,000 grew to about £1,028, giving a 10.3% annualised return (CAGR, or compound annual growth rate, is the “average speed” per year). That’s better than both the US market and global market benchmarks, which were negative or flat in the same period. However, the portfolio also showed a very sharp max drawdown of about -18%, and that drop hasn’t recovered yet. With such a short history, these numbers mostly capture recent market noise, not a stable pattern. The key takeaway is that this mix can move quickly in both directions and shouldn’t be judged on this brief run alone.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo simulation projects potential 15‑year outcomes by rerunning many possible return paths based on the limited history. Think of it as rolling the same dice 1,000 times to see a range of endings for £1,000 invested. The median outcome of about £1,813 suggests moderate growth, but the wide range (£903 to £3,727 for 90% of scenarios) shows how uncertain things are. Importantly, only three months of data feed the model, so the “dice” are based on a tiny sample and may not reflect full market cycles. These projections are best seen as a rough illustration of risk and variability, not a precise forecast.

Asset classes Info

  • No data
    80%
  • Stocks
    20%

On the asset‑class view, 20% is clearly identified as stocks, while 80% sits in a “no data” bucket, which mainly reflects missing classifications rather than genuinely unknown investments. The visible 20% confirms the presence of traditional listed equities, but the incomplete data makes it hard to judge overall balance across asset types. In practice, all three holdings are equity ETFs, so real‑world behaviour will be equity‑like, with little natural stabiliser from bonds or cash. That aligns with a high‑risk, growth‑first approach. Anyone using a structure like this usually needs a long time horizon and a separate plan for short‑term liquidity and safety.

Sectors Info

  • No data
    80%
  • Financials
    5%
  • Consumer Staples
    3%
  • Health Care
    3%
  • Industrials
    3%
  • Energy
    2%
  • Basic Materials
    2%
  • Utilities
    1%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    1%

Sector data shows 20% of the portfolio broken out and 80% as “no data,” so the picture is partial. Within the visible slice, there’s a tilt toward financials, consumer staples, health care, and industrials, with some energy, materials, utilities, and consumer discretionary. That mix loosely echoes a diversified large‑cap index, which is a positive sign. However, because most of the portfolio sits in the “no data” bucket, actual sector concentration could be different, especially given the global and small‑cap exposures. The key idea: while sector spread looks healthy where visible, decisions should not lean too heavily on this incomplete breakdown.

Regions Info

  • No data
    80%
  • Europe Developed
    19%

Geographic data currently labels 80% of the portfolio as “no data” and 19% as developed Europe, mainly reflecting UK and European large caps from the FTSE 100 ETF and part of the global core fund. In reality, the global funds likely hold a much broader mix of regions, but that’s not fully captured here. Compared with typical global market allocations, the visible slice suggests a meaningful European flavour but doesn’t rule out sizeable exposure elsewhere. Because of the gaps, it’s safer to treat this geographic view as a sketch, not a blueprint. Anyone concerned about home bias or currency exposure may want to check the full fund fact sheets.

Market capitalization Info

  • No data
    80%
  • Mega-cap
    11%
  • Large-cap
    6%
  • Mid-cap
    2%

By market capitalisation, 80% of assets fall into “no data,” with the rest split across mega‑cap, large‑cap, and a small slice of mid‑cap. The visible part suggests a strong tilt toward big established companies, which usually have more stable earnings and deeper liquidity than smaller firms. At the same time, the dedicated small‑cap value ETF likely adds more exposure to smaller companies that isn’t fully captured here. Bigger companies can dampen some volatility, while smaller ones often swing more but can boost long‑term growth. The net effect is likely a core of large global names with a deliberate, higher‑risk satellite in smaller stocks.

True holdings Info

  • HSBC Holdings PLC
    1.82%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE 100 UCITS GBP Acc
  • AstraZeneca PLC
    1.77%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE 100 UCITS GBP Acc
  • Shell plc
    1.35%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE 100 UCITS GBP Acc
  • Unilever PLC
    0.89%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE 100 UCITS GBP Acc
  • Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC
    0.86%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE 100 UCITS GBP Acc
  • British American Tobacco PLC
    0.75%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE 100 UCITS GBP Acc
  • GSK plc
    0.67%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE 100 UCITS GBP Acc
  • Rio Tinto PLC
    0.58%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE 100 UCITS GBP Acc
  • BP PLC
    0.57%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE 100 UCITS GBP Acc
  • National Grid PLC
    0.52%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE 100 UCITS GBP Acc
  • Top 10 total 9.76%

Looking through the top holdings, a noticeable slice of exposure lands in well‑known UK names like HSBC, AstraZeneca, Shell, and Unilever. These mainly come via the UK large‑cap ETF and, to a lesser extent, the global core fund. The reported overlap is small in percentage terms, but coverage is only about 10% of total assets, so hidden concentration could be higher than it appears. When the same big companies show up in multiple funds, they can drive returns more than expected. The practical takeaway is that diversifying across different index families or regions can matter more than simply counting the number of ETFs.

Risk contribution Info

  • Global Core Equity UCITS ETF USD Acc
    Weight: 70.00%
    97.9%
  • Vanguard FTSE 100 UCITS GBP Acc
    Weight: 20.00%
    1.4%
  • Avantis Global Small Cap Value UCITS ETF USD Acc
    Weight: 10.00%
    0.7%

Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the portfolio’s ups and downs, which can differ from its simple weight. Here, the global core equity ETF is 70% of the assets but contributes about 98% of total risk, meaning it effectively sets the portfolio’s behaviour. The other two ETFs together are 30% of the weight yet add barely over 2% of the risk. That imbalance suggests the smaller holdings don’t materially change the ride. Rebalancing or adjusting position sizes can help align risk contribution with intended influence, but any change would need to consider taxes, trading costs, and comfort with higher or lower volatility.

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 chart shows the current portfolio sitting below the efficient frontier. The efficient frontier is the curve of best possible returns for each risk level using just these existing holdings in different mixes. Sharpe ratio (return per unit of risk, after accounting for a risk‑free rate) is 0.48 for the current mix, versus over 2.0 for both the optimal and minimum‑variance portfolios. That means the same three ETFs could be blended in a way that historically delivered similar or slightly lower returns with far less volatility. With only three months of data, these exact numbers are shaky, but they do suggest room to improve the risk‑return balance without changing the underlying funds.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Vanguard FTSE 100 UCITS GBP Acc 0.09%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.02%

Costs look impressively low. The FTSE 100 ETF has a TER of 0.09%, and the overall portfolio TER is shown as about 0.02%, which is extremely cheap by any standard. TER (total expense ratio) is the annual fee charged by a fund, a bit like a management subscription. Low ongoing fees are one of the few things investors can fully control, and they compound in your favour over time. This alignment with low‑cost best practices is a real strength. Over decades, keeping costs this lean can add thousands of pounds of extra value compared with more expensive, actively managed alternatives.

What next?

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?

VUKG vs VWRP

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