The risk profile, derived from past market volatility, reflects the level of risk the portfolio is exposed to. This assessment helps align your investments with your financial goals and comfort with market fluctuations.
The diversification assessment evaluates the spread of investments across asset classes, regions, and sectors. This ensures a balanced mix, reducing risk and maximizing returns by not concentrating in any single area.
The portfolio is a pure equity mix built entirely from broad and style-focused ETFs, with no bonds or cash. Roughly two thirds sit in core US market exposure, mainly through total-market and large-cap growth funds. The rest tilts toward dividends, momentum, small-cap value, and a modest slice of international stocks. This kind of structure aims squarely at long-term growth, accepting meaningful ups and downs along the way. Having several style sleeves around a broad core is a common, sensible setup: the core keeps things diversified, while the satellites express specific tilts. For someone comfortable with volatility, this equity-only, growth-leaning structure can be a solid base, provided short-term spending needs are covered elsewhere.
From late 2019 to early 2026, $1,000 grew to about $2,444, implying a 14.79% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). CAGR is like your average “speed” over the whole trip, smoothing out all the bumps. That slightly beats the US market proxy (14.38%) and clearly tops the global market proxy (11.92%), showing the growth tilt has helped. The worst peak‑to‑trough drop was about ‑34.3%, very close to the benchmarks, which is typical for a growthy equity mix. This history says the structure has been rewarded, but it’s still full‑equity volatility. As always, past performance only shows what worked in this period and can differ from future outcomes.
Allocation is 100% stocks, with no explicit stabilizers like bonds or cash in the mix. That’s simple and very growth-oriented, which lines up with the “Growth Investor” risk label and a 5/7 risk score. Being all‑equity historically offers higher long-term returns than mixed portfolios, but drawdowns can be deep and take patience to recover from. Compared with many blended “balanced” allocations, this will likely swing more in both directions. For someone with a long horizon and external cash reserves, that can be acceptable. For nearer-term needs, it often makes sense to keep separate, safer buckets outside this portfolio rather than trying to make the equity sleeve do everything.
Sector exposure is led by technology at 32%, above typical global benchmarks, with financials, health care, consumer areas, and industrials sharing most of the remaining weight. This tilt toward tech and related growth industries aligns with the strong historical performance, especially given the dominance of mega‑cap tech names in recent years. The flip side is higher sensitivity to shifts in interest rates, regulation, and innovation cycles that particularly affect growth sectors. The presence of more defensive areas like consumer staples, utilities, and health care, even at smaller weights, helps keep the portfolio from being a pure single‑theme bet. Overall, the sector mix is growth‑tilted but still meaningfully diversified.
Geographically, about 93% is in North America, with only small allocations to Europe, Japan, and other developed and emerging Asia. That’s a clear US tilt relative to global market weights, where non‑US markets usually make up a much larger share. Concentrating in one region can be beneficial when that region leads, as US equities have for much of the last decade, which supports the portfolio’s strong historical results. The trade‑off is more reliance on one economy, currency, and policy environment. For some investors, modestly increasing non‑US exposure over time can smooth country‑specific risk, while others deliberately lean into the US given its depth, innovation, and transparency.
The portfolio skews heavily toward mega‑cap and large‑cap companies, together around three quarters of exposure, with the rest spread across mid, small, and a touch of micro‑cap. Large and mega‑caps tend to be more stable, established businesses with better liquidity, which usually means smoother trading and somewhat lower company‑specific risk. The smaller slice in small‑cap value, via a targeted ETF, brings in a different return driver historically associated with higher long‑term returns but bumpier rides. This blend keeps the portfolio broadly anchored in mainstream, mature companies while still tapping into the growth and risk premium potential of smaller firms, which is a healthy mix for many growth‑oriented setups.
Looking through ETF top holdings, a lot of exposure clusters in the same mega-cap names: Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Meta together account for a noticeable slice of the portfolio. These appear across multiple ETFs, so their influence is bigger than any single fund’s weight might suggest. That’s “hidden concentration”: different tickers but overlapping underlying companies. This matters because sharp moves in a few dominant names can drive the portfolio’s short‑term swings more than expected. While owning leading businesses has worked recently, being aware of this concentration helps set realistic expectations about volatility and performance if these giants cool off or underperform.
Factor exposures show mild tilts away from value, size, momentum, and quality, with yield and low volatility sitting near neutral. Factors are like underlying “personality traits” of stocks—value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility—that research has linked to returns. Here, nothing stands out as an extreme bet; it’s effectively close to a market‑like blend with a gentle lean toward larger, growthier names rather than classic value or small‑cap factors. This balanced factor footprint means performance should be driven mostly by broad market moves and sector tilts, rather than heavy exposure to any single investing style, which helps avoid sharp underperformance when one factor temporarily falls out of favor.
Risk contribution shows how much each holding actually drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weights. The total US market ETF and the large‑cap growth ETF together represent about two thirds of capital but more than 70% of total risk, with small‑cap value also punching a bit above its weight. That’s natural, as these funds are more volatile and strongly tied to the broader market. The top three holdings contribute roughly 77% of total risk, meaning changes in their prices explain most day‑to‑day movement. Keeping an eye on whether that risk concentration matches the intended comfort level is useful when considering future position size tweaks.
Correlation measures how often investments move in the same direction at the same time. Highly correlated assets don’t add much diversification when markets get rough because they tend to fall together. Here, the two dividend‑oriented ETFs are flagged as especially highly correlated, which makes sense given they target similar types of stocks. That doesn’t make them “bad,” but it means they behave more like one combined sleeve than two independent shock absorbers. Across the whole portfolio, strong overlap in US large‑cap exposure also raises correlations. In deep equity selloffs, most parts of this mix are likely to move down together, which is typical for an all‑stock structure.
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 allocation has an expected return of 16.09% with 20.73% volatility and a Sharpe ratio of 0.68. The Sharpe ratio compares return to risk—higher means more “bang for your buck” in risk taken. The optimal portfolio using the same funds reaches a Sharpe of 0.82, and even at roughly the same risk level, a reweighted mix could push expected returns above 19%. That means the current weights sit below the efficient frontier: there’s room to improve the risk/return balance just by shifting sizes between existing ETFs. No new products are needed; it’s more about fine‑tuning how much each sleeve contributes.
The overall dividend yield is about 1.24%, lower than many income‑focused portfolios but consistent with a growth‑leaning, US‑tilted equity approach. Individual pieces vary: the international and dividend‑equity funds yield around 2–3%, while large‑cap growth and momentum ETFs pay far less. Dividends can provide a small, steady return stream and some psychological comfort during flat or choppy markets. In this case, they’re a helpful supplement rather than the main driver of returns. For someone prioritizing income, this level would likely be on the low side. For an investor focused on total return and reinvestment, it’s perfectly reasonable and keeps the door open to faster‑growing companies.
Total ongoing costs (TER) average about 0.06%, which is impressively low and firmly in best‑practice territory. TER, or total expense ratio, is the annual fee charged by funds, and like a slow leak in a tire, even small differences compound over decades. Keeping costs near zero means more of the portfolio’s gross return stays in your pocket, which directly boosts long‑term outcomes without taking extra risk. The main building blocks are ultra‑low‑cost broad market and large‑cap growth funds, with only a modestly higher fee on the small‑cap value sleeve. From a cost standpoint, this setup is very efficient and supports strong long‑term compounding.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
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