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.
This “portfolio” is basically eight ways of buying the same global equity index and calling it diversification. You’ve got multiple MSCI World, multiple All-World, plus a token ACWI and multifactor slice, all tripping over each other like clones in different costumes. It looks busy, but functionally it’s one giant world-stock bet with some cosmetic variety. That’s like having five streaming services and still only watching the same show. The useful bit: it is at least coherent — broad equities, long term, simple story. The takeaway: this could be massively simplified into far fewer funds with almost zero change in behavior, just less noise and fewer moving parts.
Historically, this thing has been on a heater: €1,000 turned into €1,533 in under three years, with a 19.41% CAGR. That’s better than both the US market and global market by a couple of percentage points, which is impressive given you basically hugged broad indexes. Max drawdown of -19.26% is punchy but still slightly gentler than the benchmarks, so you got paid well for the ride. Just don’t fall in love with those numbers — past performance is like last season’s weather report: interesting, not a prophecy. Takeaway: this return profile is perfectly solid, but expecting 19% a year forever is how people end up disappointed.
The Monte Carlo projection basically says: odds are decent you’ll be fine, but don’t plan the yacht yet. Monte Carlo just runs thousands of what-if market paths to see where you could end up — like simulating a bunch of alternate universes for your portfolio. Median outcome of €2,740 from €1,000 in 15 years with an 8.18% annualized return is sensible, not fantasy. But that p5–p95 range from about €1,007 to €8,123 screams “wide uncertainty.” Translation: outcomes range from “barely beat cash” to “I’m suddenly a genius.” Takeaway: solid long-term growth potential, but future returns will almost certainly be less dramatic than the last couple of years.
Asset classes: 100% stocks, 0% chill. For something labelled “Balanced” with a 4/7 risk score, this is not balanced; it’s an all-equity roller coaster wearing a sensible-sounding name tag. No bonds, no cash buffer, nothing to tap the brakes when markets decide gravity still works. That’s fine if the plan is long-term growth and you accept that sometimes your account will look like it jumped off a balcony. But calling this balanced is like calling an espresso shot “hydration.” Takeaway: if stability or near-term withdrawals matter, this structure is aggressively one-dimensional for a supposedly moderate risk profile.
Sector-wise, you’ve got a clear tech crush at 27%, with financials and industrials lumbering behind. This is pretty close to how global indexes tilt today, but let’s not pretend it’s neutral — you’re very much riding the modern economy’s shiny, digital, growthy bits. When tech sneezes, the rest of your portfolio will reach for the tissues. The rest of the sectors are sprinkled around just enough to look respectable, like garnish on a tech main course. Takeaway: anyone holding broad market ETFs is implicitly making a big bet on tech leadership; this setup is no exception, just wearing an “I’m diversified” T-shirt.
Geographically, this is “America and some extras.” Roughly 73% North America, then a scattering of Europe, Japan, and tiny crumbs of everywhere else. That’s basically the default global-cap-weighted pattern, but let’s be honest: this is betting that the US keeps being the main character of capitalism. You’re not outrageously skewed versus global indexes, but you’re definitely not giving the rest of the world much say in your outcome. Takeaway: this is fine if you accept that your fortunes are tied to one economic bloc; just don’t pretend you’re truly global in any balanced sense. It’s more “US-led world tour.”
Market cap profile: 48% mega-cap, 35% large-cap, and everything else is just background noise. This is the classic “I bought the whole market but really I bought the giants” problem. Mid-caps are there but not decisive, and small-caps at 1% are basically in witness protection. You’re relying heavily on the biggest companies to carry the story, which is great when they’re on fire and painful when they’re the ones being sold off. Takeaway: this isn’t inherently bad, just mechanically what cap-weighted indexing does — but it does mean “broad market” basically equals “mega-caps run the show.”
The look-through is basically a shrine to the usual mega-cap celebrities: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla. Surprise: when you buy global cap-weighted ETFs, you get exactly the same handful of giants over and over. Hidden concentration is real here — all those overlapping ETFs just keep stacking the same names, even if the report only sees top-10 holdings. It’s like ordering “variety” at a restaurant and getting potatoes cooked eight different ways. The takeaway: if these mega-tech darlings wobble, your “diversified” ETF collection will all flinch at the same time, because they’re all secretly holding the same stars.
Risk contribution exposes the real troublemakers, and your biggest SPDR MSCI World position is punching above its weight. At 26.31% of the portfolio, it contributes 32.71% of total risk — doing more drama than its share. Top three holdings together drive nearly 67% of risk, which means despite the long fund list, a few big chunks dominate the emotional roller coaster. Risk contribution is basically asking “who’s actually rocking the boat?” rather than just “who’s sitting in it.” Takeaway: trimming or consolidating those oversized, highly correlated world trackers could smooth things out without changing your overall strategy one bit.
Correlation-wise, your ETFs are basically twins wearing different tickers. MSCI World, All-World, ACWI, S&P 500 — all heavily correlated, moving almost identically. In a crash, this isn’t a team of diversifiers; it’s a synchronized swimming squad all going underwater together. High correlation means you’ve paid for extra lines on a statement, not extra shock absorbers. That’s the curse of owning many overlapping broad-market funds: lots of logos, very few genuinely independent return streams. Takeaway: if almost everything moves the same way, you don’t have a collection, you have duplicates. Simplification could reduce clutter without sacrificing much behavior.
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 efficient frontier, your portfolio is the kid sitting below the best-fit curve, trying hard but leaving points on the table. Sharpe ratio of 1.06 versus 1.45 for the optimal mix says you’re taking decent risk but not getting the best bang for it. The efficient frontier is just the menu of best possible risk/return combos using your existing ingredients. You’re about 1.71 percentage points below what you could achieve at the same risk just by reweighting what you already own. Takeaway: the ingredients are fine; the recipe is sloppy. A smarter mix of the same ETFs could boost returns or lower risk without adding anything new.
Costs are actually suspiciously reasonable: a blended TER of 0.16% is firmly in “you did not get fleeced” territory. The one pricier guest is the ACWI ETF at 0.45%, but it’s a small piece, so the damage is mild. Still, given how insanely similar these broad index funds are, juggling so many tickers to land on 0.16% total is like playing 4D chess to save coins you could’ve saved with just one or two ultra-cheap funds. Takeaway: fees are under control — but you could get the same cost and outcome with half the clutter, if not less.
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