Growth focused global equity portfolio with modest diversification and neutral factor exposures

Report created on Apr 13, 2026

Risk profile

  • Secure
    Speculative

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.

Diversification profile

  • Focused
    Diversified

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.

Positions

This portfolio is 100% in stock ETFs, split across five funds with no bonds or cash buffer. Two broad funds cover U.S. growth and international markets, while three more targeted ETFs tilt toward dividends, tech-heavy growth, and energy. The biggest single sleeve is large‑cap U.S. growth at 25%, paired with 25% in broad international stocks. This structure makes the portfolio clearly growth‑oriented and cyclical, rather than defensive. Being all‑equity is powerful for long horizons but can be emotionally tough in deep drawdowns. A practical takeaway is that anyone using a setup like this usually needs either a long time horizon or separate cash reserves to ride out big market swings without being forced to sell.

Growth Info

Historically, $1,000 grew to about $3,693 over ten years, which is strong in absolute terms. The portfolio’s compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.03% basically matched the U.S. market (14.16%) and comfortably beat the global market (11.62%). CAGR is like average speed on a long road trip, accounting for ups and downs along the way. Max drawdown was about ‑34%, very similar to both benchmarks, with a sharp fall in early 2020 and a quick recovery in about four months. This shows the portfolio has behaved much like a U.S. growth‑tilted equity mix. It’s important to remember that even a strong history doesn’t guarantee similar returns in the next decade, especially if leadership rotates across regions or styles.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection uses past returns and volatility to simulate many possible future paths, like running 1,000 “what if” market histories. For a $1,000 starting amount over 15 years, the median outcome lands around $2,812, with a typical middle range between about $1,892 and $4,322. The average annualized return across all simulations is 8.23%, lower than the backward‑looking 14% CAGR, which is a more conservative outlook. There’s about a 76% chance of finishing with a positive nominal return. These simulations help frame expectations but still rely on historical patterns. Real life could be better or worse, especially if there are structural changes in markets, inflation, or interest rates over that period.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

All of the money here is in stocks, with 0% in bonds, cash, or alternatives. That means the portfolio is fully exposed to equity market cycles: big upside in strong bull markets but deep drops when stocks fall. In mixed portfolios, bonds and cash often act as shock absorbers; here, that cushion is missing by design. This all‑equity stance can be well‑suited to investors with long horizons and high risk tolerance, but it’s a poor fit for anyone needing near‑term withdrawals. The diversification score of “moderately diversified” reflects that diversity is happening within one asset class, not across multiple types of assets. Separately holding some cash or fixed income outside this sleeve can help smooth the ride.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    26%
  • Energy
    20%
  • Financials
    9%
  • Telecommunications
    9%
  • Health Care
    9%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    9%
  • Industrials
    8%
  • Consumer Staples
    7%
  • Basic Materials
    3%
  • Utilities
    1%
  • Real Estate
    1%

Sector‑wise, the portfolio leans heavily on technology (26%) and energy (20%), with the remaining half spread relatively evenly across financials, telecom, healthcare, consumer areas, and industrials. This is a more concentrated sector profile than a typical global equity benchmark, which usually has less in energy and a more balanced tech share. Tech and energy can both be quite cyclical and sensitive to interest rates, commodity prices, and regulation. That means performance could be very strong in environments favoring growth and high commodity prices, but more volatile during rate hikes, tech pullbacks, or oil price slumps. The positive side is that most major economic sectors are at least represented, which avoids a single‑sector “all‑in” bet.

Regions Info

  • North America
    77%
  • Europe Developed
    9%
  • Japan
    4%
  • Asia Developed
    4%
  • Asia Emerging
    4%
  • Australasia
    1%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Latin America
    1%

Geographically, about 77% of exposure is in North America, with the rest spread across developed Europe and Asia plus small slices of emerging markets and other regions. That’s more U.S./North America‑heavy than a typical global market portfolio, where the U.S. is closer to 60–65%. The upside is that this has matched the last decade’s leadership of U.S. large‑cap growth, helping performance versus the global benchmark. The trade‑off is a bigger dependence on one economy, currency, and policy environment. If U.S. markets underperform or the dollar weakens for an extended period, the portfolio may lag a more globally even mix. Still, the presence of a broad international ETF gives a meaningful, if minority, diversification benefit.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    40%
  • Mega-cap
    39%
  • Mid-cap
    18%
  • Small-cap
    2%

Market‑cap exposure is dominated by mega‑ and large‑caps, together almost 80% of the portfolio, with smaller allocations to mid‑caps and only 2% in small‑caps. This “big company” bias is typical of index‑heavy portfolios and helps explain the smoother behavior relative to more speculative small‑cap mixes. Mega‑caps tend to be more stable and liquid, but they can also be more fully priced, limiting future upside if expectations are already high. The modest mid‑ and small‑cap exposure does add some growth potential and diversification, as smaller companies often move differently across market cycles. Overall, the size profile here is close to market‑like, with a slight de‑emphasis on the riskiest, smallest names.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    4.23%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Apple Inc
    3.69%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Exxon Mobil Corp
    3.52%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
  • Chevron Corp
    3.40%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    2.68%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    2.14%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • ConocoPhillips
    1.90%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.72%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    1.50%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    1.44%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Top 10 total 26.22%

Looking through the ETFs, a lot of risk is tied to a small group of mega‑caps: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Broadcom show up prominently. On top of that, Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips dominate the energy sleeve. Overlap means the same company can influence the portfolio through several funds at once, even though it doesn’t appear as a separate position. That creates hidden concentration: for example, a tech or energy shock will hit multiple holdings simultaneously. Because only ETF top‑10s are shown, real overlap is probably higher. A practical implication is that what looks like five diversified ETFs is, under the hood, heavily driven by a handful of giant U.S. tech and energy names.

Factors Info

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

Factor exposure is very balanced: value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility all sit around the neutral band. Factor investing looks at characteristics like cheapness (value) or stability (low volatility) that research links to long‑term returns; here, there’s no strong tilt toward or away from any of them. That means the portfolio is behaving much like a broad market basket rather than making an intentional bet on, say, high dividend yield or deep value. This neutrality can be positive because returns are driven more by broad market direction and stock selection inside the ETFs, not by concentrated factor bets. It also means performance will likely track overall equity markets rather than zigging when they zag.

Risk contribution Info

  • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
    Weight: 25.00%
    27.3%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
    Weight: 25.00%
    21.6%
  • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
    Weight: 15.00%
    18.0%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Weight: 15.00%
    16.6%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
    Weight: 20.00%
    16.5%

Risk contribution shows how much each holding adds to overall portfolio ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. The Schwab U.S. Large‑Cap Growth ETF is 25% of assets but about 27% of risk, while QQQ and the energy fund also punch slightly above their weights, especially energy with a risk/weight ratio of 1.20. In contrast, the dividend ETF and international fund contribute a bit less risk than their sizes. The top three positions together drive roughly two‑thirds of total portfolio volatility. This is normal but worth noting: trimming or adjusting just those three can meaningfully change the overall risk profile, whereas tiny tweaks to the smaller positions will have limited impact on how bumpy the ride feels.

Redundant positions Info

  • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
    High correlation

Correlation measures how closely assets move together; a correlation near 1 means they often rise and fall in sync. Here, the Invesco QQQ Trust and the Schwab U.S. Large‑Cap Growth ETF are flagged as almost perfectly correlated. That makes sense, because both focus on U.S. large‑cap growth and share many of the same top tech names. Holding both doesn’t add much diversification; instead, it amplifies that specific style exposure. This isn’t inherently bad, especially for someone deliberately leaning into U.S. growth, but it does reduce the benefits of having multiple funds. The pieces that truly diversify are the dividend ETF, the energy sector fund, and the broad international ETF, which respond differently across market environments.

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 chart compares risk and return trade‑offs using only the existing holdings. Right now, the portfolio sits about 1.65 percentage points below the frontier at its current risk level, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.60. The Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk, after accounting for a 4% risk‑free rate. The optimal mix of these same ETFs could, in theory, deliver a higher Sharpe of 0.86 by slightly increasing risk to gain more expected return, while the minimum‑variance mix offers lower risk with a Sharpe of 0.66. This suggests the current allocation is decent but not fully efficient; modest reweighting within the same funds could improve the risk/return balance without changing the building blocks.

Dividends Info

  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.50%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
  • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.40%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.80%
  • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund 2.60%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.94%

The overall dividend yield is about 1.94%, a bit higher than pure growth portfolios but lower than classic high‑income setups. Income is anchored by the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF at 3.4%, plus solid yields from international equities and energy, while QQQ and the large‑cap growth ETF contribute very little income. Dividends can be useful for investors who like regular cash flow or who want part of their return to come from company profits rather than only price gains. In a growth‑oriented mix like this, income is more of a side benefit than the main goal. Over time, reinvested dividends can still be an important driver of total return, especially in sideways or choppy markets.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.04%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
  • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund 0.09%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.08%

The weighted total expense ratio (TER) is around 0.08%, which is impressively low for a multi‑fund equity portfolio. TER is the annual fee charged by ETFs, a bit like a small percentage haircut taken each year. Low costs matter because they’re one of the few things investors can control: every dollar not paid in fees stays invested and compounds over time. The largest weights are in very low‑cost index funds, and even the pricier QQQ is still moderate at 0.20%. Overall, this cost structure is a real strength and aligns well with best practices for long‑term investing. It gives the portfolio more room to keep up with, or beat, net‑of‑fee benchmarks over decades.

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