This portfolio has only about 1.1 years 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.

Highly aggressive tech tilted portfolio with strong quality bias and impressive recent performance

Report created on Mar 26, 2026

Risk profile Info

6/7
Aggressive
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

5/5
Highly Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

The portfolio is dominated by equities, with 55% in individual stocks and broad-market ETFs plus an extra 11% in gold and other assets. A large all-world ETF anchors over a quarter of the portfolio, while regional funds add a deliberate tilt toward Europe and emerging markets. On top of that, there is a sizable basket of single names, heavily focused on fast-growing companies. This mix combines a diversified core with high-conviction satellite positions. Structurally, that’s a classic “core plus satellites” setup: broad funds help manage risk, while individual stocks drive potential outperformance. The big takeaway is that the risk level is intentionally high, and outcomes will likely be driven by stock selection more than by the ETFs.

Growth Info

Over the past year or so, the hypothetical $1,000 investment grew to $1,918, translating into a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 81%. CAGR is the “average yearly speed” of growth over the whole period. This massively outpaced both the U.S. market and global market references, which delivered mid-teens growth at best. Interestingly, the portfolio’s max drawdown of about -17% was similar to or slightly better than the benchmarks’ worst falls. That combination of very high return with only moderate extra downside is impressive, but it’s based on a short, favorable window. Past performance, especially over less than two years, can be misleading and may not persist.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection simulates 1,000 possible 10‑year paths using the portfolio’s recent return and volatility. Monte Carlo is like running many “what if” market histories, each slightly different, to see a range of outcomes instead of just one forecast. Here the median simulated outcome is astronomically high, with implied annual returns above 100%, and every path ends positive. That tells you more about how extreme the short-term historical data has been than about realistic long-run expectations. With only 216 data points and a very hot recent run, the model almost certainly overestimates future returns. It’s safer to treat these projections as stress tests around volatility rather than as a credible prediction of long-term wealth.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    55%
  • Other
    11%

Asset-class-wise, this is overwhelmingly an equity portfolio, with a modest diversifier in gold and other non-equity holdings. Equities are the main growth engine but also the primary source of volatility, so a 55% direct stock allocation plus equity-heavy ETFs aligns with the aggressive risk profile. Gold can sometimes act as a hedge in market stress or inflation spikes, but at around 10% it’s still a supporting role rather than a core stabilizer. Compared with more balanced multi-asset mixes that include bonds or cash, this setup is geared far more toward capital growth than capital preservation. For someone comfortable with large swings, this equity-heavy stance is aligned with a long time horizon and high risk appetite.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    21%
  • Industrials
    12%
  • Telecommunications
    5%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    5%
  • Financials
    4%
  • Health Care
    3%
  • Utilities
    3%
  • Consumer Staples
    1%
  • Energy
    1%
  • Basic Materials
    1%

Sector exposure is clearly tilted toward technology and related growth areas, with tech sitting around a fifth of the portfolio and industrials in second place. Other sectors like communication services, consumer cyclicals, financials, and healthcare appear in smaller but meaningful slices, while defensives such as utilities, consumer staples, and energy are minor. Compared with broad global benchmarks, this is likely more tech-centric and less balanced in slower-moving, defensive areas. Tech-heavy portfolios tend to shine in innovation-led bull markets but can be hit harder when interest rates rise or sentiment turns against high-growth names. The positive aspect is that this sector mix aligns with recent market leadership, but it also means living with sharp drawdowns when the growth trade cools.

Regions Info

  • North America
    32%
  • Europe Developed
    21%
  • Asia Emerging
    2%

Geographically, the portfolio is anchored in North America at about one‑third, with a strong tilt toward developed Europe and a modest allocation to emerging Asia. That differs from a typical global cap-weighted blend, which is usually more U.S.-heavy and less Europe-focused. The deliberate European emphasis can help if European markets outperform or if you want to reduce reliance on U.S.-centric themes. On the other hand, a relatively small exposure to emerging regions limits participation in some of the world’s faster-growing economies, while also moderating their often higher volatility. This geographic mix is well diversified across major developed markets and reduces single-country risk, though it is not a neutral “global market” mirror.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    27%
  • Large-cap
    23%
  • Mid-cap
    6%

By market capitalization, the portfolio leans strongly into mega and large-cap companies, with over half in these bigger names and a smaller slice in mid caps. Large and mega caps often bring more stable business models, stronger balance sheets, and better liquidity than small caps, which can cushion some volatility despite the aggressive profile. At the same time, a lighter allocation to smaller companies means less exposure to potential small-cap growth spurts, which historically have sometimes boosted long-term returns. This cap structure aligns well with mainstream global benchmarks and contributes to the high diversification score. It also means that much of the portfolio’s behavior will follow the fortunes of the world’s largest, most widely followed firms.

True holdings Info

  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    2.86%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    2.86%
  • Vertiv Holdings Co
    2.71%
  • Advanced Micro Devices Inc
    2.56%
  • Amazon.com Inc
    2.41%
  • Microsoft Corporation
    2.41%
  • Sandisk Corp
    2.26%
  • nVent Electric PLC
    2.11%
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    1.96%
  • ASE Industrial Holding Co Ltd ADR
    1.81%
  • Top 10 total 23.95%

Looking through the ETFs, the top underlying exposures are mostly your direct single stocks, and current data shows little double-counting of the same company via funds. Overlap is likely higher in reality because only ETF top-10 holdings are used, so mega-cap names probably show up inside the broad global and regional ETFs as well. Hidden overlap matters because it can quietly increase exposure to a few big companies, reducing true diversification. When a stock appears directly and via multiple funds, its impact on the portfolio’s ups and downs grows. The main takeaway is that concentration in large, popular companies is probably stronger than the surface weights suggest, especially in tech and communication names.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 53%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 46%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
High
Data availability: 100%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
High
Data availability: 43%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Low
Data availability: 28%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 64%

Factor exposure shows strong tilts to quality, momentum, and low volatility, with more moderate leanings to value, size, and yield. Factors are like the underlying “traits” that drive returns — for example, momentum favors recent winners, and quality targets profitable, stable firms. High momentum and quality exposure suggests the portfolio is loaded with strong, recently outperforming companies that also have robust fundamentals. That can work very well in trending markets but may suffer when leadership rotates or when crowded trades unwind. The low-volatility tilt slightly tempers swings, though aggressive growth names still dominate. Limited coverage in some signals means factor estimates are imperfect, but overall this factor mix is a sophisticated, return-seeking profile with some risk-conscious elements built in.

Risk contribution Info

  • Sandisk Corp
    Weight: 2.26%
    9.5%
  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI UCITS ETF
    Weight: 28.12%
    8.7%
  • Vertiv Holdings Co
    Weight: 2.71%
    6.9%
  • iShares Europe ETF
    Weight: 9.62%
    6.2%
  • Micron Technology Inc
    Weight: 1.81%
    6.0%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 37.2%

Risk contribution data highlights how a few positions punch above their weight. Sandisk, for example, is only about 2.3% of the portfolio but contributes roughly 9.5% of total risk, more than four times its weight. Vertiv and Micron also add disproportionately large slices of volatility relative to their allocations. Meanwhile, the big global ETF has a large weight but a relatively modest risk contribution, which is a positive sign for diversification. Risk contribution is useful because it shows which holdings actually drive the portfolio’s ups and downs, not just what’s largest on paper. If any single stock’s risk share feels uncomfortably high, trimming or offsetting with more stable names can help better align realized volatility with the intended risk level.

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.

On the risk–return chart, the current portfolio sits on the efficient frontier, meaning that for its given mix of holdings it’s already using risk reasonably well. The Sharpe ratio — return per unit of risk — is strong at about 2.36, though the highest possible Sharpe using the same ingredients is even higher at 3.67 in the optimal portfolio. There is also a “same-risk optimized” allocation that theoretically delivers much higher expected return but at wildly higher volatility, which shows how sensitive results are to the short, hot history. The key message is that reweighting between existing positions could nudge the portfolio closer to the optimal tradeoff, but it’s already in a structurally efficient spot relative to its holdings.

Dividends Info

  • ASE Industrial Holding Co Ltd ADR 1.60%
  • Constellation Energy Corp 0.50%
  • Eaton Corporation PLC 0.80%
  • iShares MSCI Italy ETF 2.90%
  • Alphabet Inc Class A 0.30%
  • iShares Europe ETF 2.80%
  • Eli Lilly and Company 0.70%
  • Meta Platforms Inc. 0.40%
  • Microsoft Corporation 0.90%
  • Micron Technology Inc 0.10%
  • nVent Electric PLC 0.60%
  • Prysmian S.p.A 0.80%
  • Reply SpA 1.40%
  • Schneider Electric SE 3.00%
  • Vertiv Holdings Co 0.10%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 0.57%

The portfolio’s total dividend yield is around 0.57%, which is quite low and consistent with a growth-oriented approach. Many of the key holdings are focused on reinvesting profits into expansion rather than distributing large cash payouts. Dividends can provide a steady income stream and slightly cushion returns in sideways markets, but they are not the main driver here. Instead, the strategy leans on capital appreciation from price gains. For long-term growth-focused investors who don’t need current income, a lower yield can be perfectly acceptable. Just be aware that in more defensive or income-oriented strategies, yields are often significantly higher, and they play a larger role in total return, especially in mature or slower-growth environments.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF 0.18%
  • iShares MSCI Italy ETF 0.50%
  • iShares Europe ETF 0.67%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.10%

Total ongoing costs, with a blended TER of about 0.10%, are impressively low given the range of ETFs used. Some individual funds, like the Europe and Italy ETFs, charge higher expense ratios, but the large allocation to a low-cost global ETF keeps the average down. Keeping fees minimal is one of the few things investors can reliably control, and small percentage differences compound meaningfully over decades. This cost profile is well-aligned with best practices and supports better net performance versus similar portfolios with higher-fee products. The main consideration is simply to keep monitoring for cheaper equivalents over time, especially as new, lower-cost vehicles often enter the market.

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