This portfolio is built around four broad index ETFs, with 83% in stocks and 17% in bonds. The biggest piece is a total US stock fund, followed by international stocks, then a dedicated US growth fund and a core US bond fund. So most of the risk and return comes from diversified stock markets, while the bond slice plays a stabilizing role. Structurally, this is a classic “core plus growth tilt” setup: a broad core of total-market funds, plus an extra growth fund layered on top. That design keeps things simple, transparent, and easy to understand, while still giving the portfolio a clear leaning toward faster‑growing companies.
From 2016 to 2026, a hypothetical $1,000 invested here grew to about $3,388, which works out to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.03%. CAGR is the “smooth” average yearly growth, like your average speed on a long road trip. That’s slightly ahead of the global market benchmark but trails the US market, which had a very strong decade. The worst peak‑to‑trough drop was about -29.9% during early 2020, a bit milder than the benchmarks. The fact that 90% of returns came from just 36 days highlights how a small number of very strong days can drive long‑term results and why missing them can matter.
The Monte Carlo projection uses past return and volatility patterns to simulate 1,000 different 15‑year futures for this mix. Think of it as running the same movie with slightly different weather each time and seeing where $1,000 might land. The median outcome is about $2,660, with a “middle” band from roughly $1,862 to $3,707. Extreme outcomes range wider, from around $1,098 to $6,325. The average simulated annual return is 7.41%, and about three‑quarters of simulations end positive. These numbers are not promises; they’re statistical sketches based on history, and real markets can easily land outside even the 5–95% band.
With 83% in stocks and 17% in bonds, the asset mix leans clearly toward growth rather than capital preservation. Stocks tend to drive long‑term returns but come with larger swings, while bonds typically act as a dampener, especially in equity‑led sell‑offs. This stock/bond split lines up with what’s often called a “balanced to growth‑oriented” posture rather than conservative. Compared with a 100% stock approach, the bond slice should reduce overall volatility and drawdowns. Compared with a 40–60 stock/bond mix, though, this structure will likely feel more tied to equity market ups and downs, especially during sharp equity rallies or corrections.
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Sector exposure is broad, with all major areas represented, but there’s a clear tilt toward technology at 29%. Financials, industrials, consumer discretionary, telecom, and health care together make up a large secondary layer, while staples, energy, materials, real estate, and utilities play smaller roles. This looks similar to many broad equity benchmarks where tech has grown large, but the extra Vanguard Growth ETF tends to push the portfolio even more toward tech‑related businesses. Tech‑heavy portfolios often benefit when growth stories and innovation are rewarded, but they can see sharper swings when interest rates rise or when investor enthusiasm for high‑growth names cools.
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Geographically, the portfolio is strongly centered on North America at 64%, with smaller exposure to Europe, Japan, and both developed and emerging Asia. This is broadly in line with many global equity indices that are also US‑heavy, but your mix stays firmly US‑anchored because of the total US stock and growth funds. That concentration has helped during a decade when US markets outpaced much of the world. It also means the portfolio’s fortunes are closely tied to one economy, one policy regime, and mostly one currency. The international sleeve adds some diversification, but the overall story remains US‑led in both risk and return.
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Most of the equity exposure sits in mega‑cap and large‑cap companies, together over 60% of the portfolio. These are the giants—household names with established businesses and deep markets for their shares. Mid‑caps, small‑caps, and micro‑caps are present but play a supporting role. Larger companies often bring more stability and liquidity, while smaller ones can be more volatile but sometimes faster‑growing. This cap structure is very similar to mainstream market indices, which are also dominated by big names. It suggests that day‑to‑day behavior will broadly echo that of the overall market, rather than being driven by niche or very small companies.
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Looking through the ETFs, the top underlying exposures are familiar mega‑cap growth names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and a few others. These companies show up in multiple funds, especially the total US and growth ETFs, which creates overlap and hidden concentration. For example, Apple and NVIDIA together already account for more than 9% of the portfolio’s look‑through exposure just within the top‑10 holdings data. Because only ETF top‑10s are available, actual overlap is likely somewhat higher. That means individual large growth stocks can have an outsized impact on portfolio behavior, even though you only hold broad index funds.
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 exposures across value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility all sit in the “neutral” band, close to 50%. In factor terms, that means the portfolio behaves a lot like the broad market rather than strongly leaning into any one style. Think of factors as investing “flavors”—value, momentum, etc.—and this mix is more like a classic vanilla index cone. This aligns well with the use of total‑market index funds as the core holdings. The slight uptick in yield and low volatility scores is still neutral, so it doesn’t represent a meaningful defensive or income tilt. Overall, the factor profile looks balanced and broadly diversified.
Risk contribution shows how much each ETF drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weights. The total US stock ETF is 46% of assets but adds about 55% of total risk. The growth ETF, at 16% weight, contributes nearly 22% of risk, reflecting its higher volatility. International stocks contribute risk in line with their weight, while the bond ETF is 17% of the portfolio but only about 1.5% of overall risk. The top three positions together explain more than 98% of total portfolio volatility. So, in practice, the portfolio’s risk is almost entirely an equity story, especially US and growth‑oriented equities.
The correlation data highlight that the total US stock ETF and the US growth ETF move almost identically. Correlation measures how often two assets move in the same direction; when it’s very high, they’re essentially dancing to the same song. This makes sense because growth stocks are a big part of the total US market index. For diversification, highly correlated holdings don’t reduce risk much when markets fall together, even if they are separate funds. Instead, they tend to amplify similar patterns. In this portfolio, bonds and international stocks do more of the heavy lifting for diversification than the additional US growth slice.
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‑return chart shows the current portfolio with a Sharpe ratio of 0.58, close to the efficient frontier based on your existing holdings. The Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk above a risk‑free rate—higher is better from a risk‑adjusted perspective. The optimizer finds that, using only these four ETFs, a different mix could hypothetically push the Sharpe to 0.83, but at a higher volatility level. There’s also a minimum‑risk mix with much lower volatility but also much lower expected return. Because your current point is essentially on the frontier, the allocation is already efficient for its chosen risk level given the building blocks in use.
The overall dividend yield is about 1.73%, combining roughly 4.0% from bonds, 2.5% from international stocks, 1.0% from total US stocks, and a low 0.4% from the growth ETF. Yield here means the cash income paid out over a year as a percentage of the holding’s value. So most of the income in this portfolio comes from bonds and international equities, while US growth stocks are more focused on reinvesting profits than paying dividends. For a portfolio tilted toward growth, this moderate yield is typical. Total return over time will mainly depend on price changes, with dividends providing a smaller but steady contribution.
The total expense ratio (TER) of the portfolio averages about 0.04% per year, with individual ETFs ranging from 0.03% to 0.05%. TER is the annual fee charged by the funds, expressed as a percentage of assets—like a very small ongoing service fee. For every $1,000 invested, that’s roughly 40 cents a year in fund costs, which is impressively low by industry standards. Low costs mean more of the portfolio’s gross returns stay in your pocket and can compound over time. This cost profile is a real strength: it supports long‑term performance and aligns closely with best practices for broad index investing.
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