Two ETF wonder pretending to be diversified while mainlining growth and dividends from one country
Report created on Mar 31, 2026Risk 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.
What type of investor this portfolio is suitable for
Balanced Investors
This portfolio suits someone who likes risk in a “I’ll call it balanced so I sleep at night” kind of way. They want growth, believe in big US companies, and sprinkle in dividends mostly for psychological comfort. Time horizon is probably long—think a decade or more—because this setup will throw some serious tantrums in bear markets. They’re fee-conscious, reasonably rational, and okay with volatility as long as the story feels familiar and simple. In personality terms: loyal, a bit stubborn, mildly thrill-seeking, and absolutely convinced the US equity train keeps running.
Positions
-
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 60.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 40.00%
This “portfolio” is really just a duet: 60% NASDAQ 100 rocket fuel plus 40% dividend comfort blanket. It’s like mixing energy drinks with chamomile tea and calling it a balanced diet. There’s no bonds, no cash buffer, no other asset class pretending to help if things go sideways. Just two US equity funds trying to do every job at once. The result is simple, but also fragile: if US stocks stumble, both legs trip at the same time. The main takeaway: this isn’t balanced, it’s just slightly de-spiced growth with a side of yield marketing.
Growth
Performance since late 2020 is good but not special: $1,000 turns into $1,948, roughly a 13.05% CAGR. CAGR is just the “average yearly speed” of your money on a bumpy road. You basically matched the US market and only modestly beat the global market, despite leaning hard into the NASDAQ growth engine. Max drawdown at -26.3% was slightly worse than the US market too, so you took similar (or a bit more) pain for almost the same gain. Past data is like yesterday’s weather: useful context, but it doesn’t promise tomorrow’s sunshine.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset-class “diversification” here is easy to summarize: stocks, and absolutely nothing else. It’s 100% equity, 0% bonds, 0% real assets, 0% anything that might behave differently when equities hit a wall. Calling this “Balanced Investors” with a 4/7 risk score is generous; it’s more like “stock enthusiast who occasionally peers at a risk label.” In calm markets, that’s fine. In a real crash, there’s nowhere to hide. Takeaway: if everything in the portfolio earns its living by going up with stocks, don’t be surprised when everything goes down together.
Sectors
- Technology 36%
- Consumer Staples 13%
- Telecommunications 12%
- Health Care 11%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Energy 7%
- Industrials 5%
- Financials 4%
- Utilities 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
Sector exposure is basically “tech and tech-adjacent plus some defensive lipstick.” Around a third in technology alone, with more growthy stuff hiding in consumer and communication names. Then you’ve got consumer staples, telecom, and healthcare trying to pretend they’ll save the day. But make no mistake: this is a growth-driven portfolio with a modest value-and-defensive overlay from the dividend fund. If the high-growth darlings get punched, the whole thing feels it. It’s like bolting a bike helmet onto a sports car and calling it a safety upgrade.
Regions
- North America 99%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geography-wise, this is “America or bust” with a token 1% nod to Europe like someone felt guilty at the last minute. About 99% in North America means the portfolio lives and dies with one economy, one currency, and one political system. That’s great when the US is winning, but the rest of the world does exist and occasionally performs better. This isn’t global diversification; it’s just home-country comfort dressed as confidence. The lesson: geographic risk is invisible until your one big bet starts sneezing and your whole portfolio catches a cold.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 49%
- Mega-cap 32%
- Mid-cap 16%
- Small-cap 1%
Market cap tilt: this is the mega and large-cap fan club with a tiny side quest into mid and small caps. About four-fifths is in mega and large companies, the household names already on every index, ETF, and finance headline. That makes the portfolio pretty stable relative to a small-cap roller coaster, but also highly tied to crowded trades and popular narratives. Almost no exposure to small caps means you’re skipping the scrappy up-and-comers entirely. It’s like only betting on the biggest teams in the league and hoping the underdogs never matter.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 5.13%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 4.58%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.35%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.75%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 2.29%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
-
WM Walmart Inc. Common Stock 2.03%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.02%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.99%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.88%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
CV Chevron Corp 1.81%
Part of fund(s):- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
- Top 10 total 27.82%
Look-through holdings scream “Big Tech and mega-brand fandom.” NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Tesla, Alphabet, Meta… if it could headline a CNBC segment, it’s in there. And some show up more than once through different funds. Overlap is likely even higher than shown because we only see ETF top-10s; the rest of the iceberg is hidden. So the portfolio looks like two funds on the surface, but under the hood you’ve got the same megacap names doing the heavy lifting. Translation: this is a crowded trade, not a secret recipe.
Factors
Factor profile is surprisingly boring—in a good way. Everything is basically neutral: value, size, momentum, quality, yield, low volatility all hovering around “market-like.” Factors are the hidden ingredients explaining why a portfolio behaves the way it does: cheap vs expensive, stable vs wild, fast-rising vs laggards. Here, you’re basically running a very standard equity recipe with no big tilts or weird factor experiments. That’s either quiet discipline or total accident, but it does mean the portfolio will generally move like a vanilla broad market, just more growth-flavored.
Risk contribution
-
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 60.00% 73.3% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 40.00% 26.8%
Risk contribution shows who’s really causing the mood swings, and the NASDAQ ETF is absolutely the drama queen. At 60% weight it’s responsible for over 73% of total risk, while the dividend fund at 40% weight only contributes about 27%. Risk contribution is like asking “who’s actually rocking the boat?” instead of just “who’s sitting in it?” The growth sleeve is punching above its weight, so when volatility shows up, you feel it from that side first. Trimming or balancing that risk driver could calm the ride without changing what you own.
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, this portfolio actually behaves itself: you’re on or very near the efficient frontier. The efficient frontier is the curve showing the best possible return for each risk level using only what you already hold. You’re getting about 14.2% expected return for 17.5% risk, with a Sharpe around 0.7—decent, if not elite. The “optimal” and “min variance” mixes are only slightly less spicy with similar returns, so you’re not leaving obvious money on the table. For a two-ETF setup, that’s surprisingly tight, even if it’s still a concentrated theme.
Dividends
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.66%
The yield story is a bit of a split personality. One ETF is barely yielding at 0.5%; the other’s around 3.4%, pulling the total to roughly 1.66%. That’s not a serious income engine; it’s more like a tip jar. Dividend focus might give a false sense of safety, but dividends don’t magically cancel volatility or guarantee stability. Companies can cut payouts the moment things get tough. Takeaway: this setup is still mainly a growth play with a light dividend accent, not a reliable paycheck machine for someone trying to live off the income.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.11%
Costs are actually the unsung hero here. A blended TER of about 0.11% is impressively low—you basically refuse to overpay for your thrills. That’s like somehow sneaking into business class while paying economy fees. Cheap funds mean more of the returns, whatever they end up being, stay in your pocket instead of feeding an asset manager’s bonus pool. Even in a roast, credit where it’s due: you did not faceplant into the high-fee trap. The twist, of course, is you used that frugality to double down on a very narrow equity bet.
What next?
Ready to invest in this portfolio?
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
Create your own report?
Join our community!
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