Three fund global equity mix with strong US focus and tech tilted growth potential
Report created on Apr 21, 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.
Positions
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 60.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 20.00% -
VE Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets Index Fund ETF Shares
VEA - US9219438580 20.00%
This portfolio is a simple three‑fund setup holding only stock ETFs: a core broad US index, a growth‑tilted US index, and a developed ex‑US index. The 60/20/20 split creates a clear anchor in the broad US market with added emphasis on large US growth companies and a smaller slice of other developed markets. This structure is easy to follow because each holding plays a distinct role rather than overlapping niche themes. A concentrated lineup like this can be straightforward to monitor and understand, while still tapping into thousands of underlying companies through the indexes. The result is a stock‑only structure that leans toward growth and developed markets rather than income or capital preservation.
Growth
From late 2020 to mid‑2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $2,136, which translates into a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.84%. CAGR is like the average speed on a road trip, smoothing out bumps to show how fast the portfolio grew per year. Over this period, returns were slightly behind the broad US market by 0.20 percentage points per year, but ahead of the global market by 1.71 points. The deepest drop, or max drawdown, was about -27.2%, a meaningful but not extreme equity‑style fall. Recovery took roughly 14 months after the bottom. All of this is historical, though, and doesn’t guarantee anything about the future.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection uses past return and volatility patterns to simulate 1,000 different 15‑year futures for the portfolio. Think of it as running many “what if” scenarios to see a range of possible outcomes rather than one fixed forecast. The median result turns a $1,000 investment into around $2,796, with a wide middle band from roughly $1,863 to $4,316. The annualized return across all simulations is 8.25%, lower than recent history but still clearly above the assumed cash outcome. Importantly, even the pessimistic paths still show a reasonable chance of ending above the starting amount, but outcomes vary a lot, underscoring that long‑term equity returns are uncertain and lumpy.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of this portfolio sits in one asset class: stocks. Asset classes are broad groups like stocks, bonds, or cash that behave differently over time. Being 100% in equities maximizes exposure to company growth but also fully exposes the portfolio to stock market ups and downs without a built‑in safety buffer from bonds or cash. Compared with many blended portfolios that mix stocks and bonds, this setup is more growth‑oriented and will typically swing more day to day. The Balanced risk label reflects that, even within stocks, broad index funds can reduce single‑company risk, but the absence of other asset types still keeps overall risk firmly on the equity side.
Sectors
- Technology 33%
- Financials 12%
- Telecommunications 10%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Industrials 9%
- Health Care 8%
- Consumer Staples 6%
- Energy 4%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector‑wise, the portfolio leans heavily into Technology at around a third of equity exposure, followed by meaningful slices of Financials, Telecommunications, Consumer Discretionary, and Industrials. This kind of tech‑heavy mix is common in modern market‑cap indexes because large technology and communication companies dominate global market value. A higher technology share often brings stronger growth potential but can make returns more sensitive to things like interest‑rate changes or shifts in innovation cycles. The rest of the sectors — Health Care, Consumer Staples, Energy, Materials, Utilities, and Real Estate — are present but smaller, which means defensive areas play more of a supporting role rather than driving overall behavior.
Regions
- North America 82%
- Europe Developed 10%
- Japan 4%
- Asia Developed 2%
- Australasia 1%
Geographically, about 82% of the portfolio is in North America, with the rest spread mostly across developed Europe, Japan, and other developed Asia and Australasia. That’s a strong US and Canadian tilt compared with a typical global market index, where North America still dominates but not to this extent. A heavy North American focus means performance is closely tied to the economic, political, and currency conditions of that region. The developed‑market exposure outside North America adds some diversification, but emerging markets are essentially absent. This setup aligns well with the recent outperformance of US stocks, yet it does mean the portfolio relies heavily on one major region for returns.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 47%
- Large-cap 34%
- Mid-cap 17%
- Small-cap 1%
The market‑cap breakdown shows a strong skew toward mega‑cap and large‑cap companies, together making up over 80% of the portfolio, with mid‑caps playing a smaller role and small‑caps barely present. Market capitalization describes company size based on stock market value, and larger firms tend to be more stable and widely followed. This large‑cap dominance matches the design of the underlying index funds, which weight companies by size. In practice, that can mean smoother earnings profiles and greater resilience compared with smaller firms, but it also reduces exposure to the sometimes higher‑growth, more volatile small‑cap segment. The portfolio’s behavior will therefore be driven mainly by the world’s biggest, most established companies.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 6.33%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 5.44%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 4.09%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.16%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.52%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.27%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.11%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 2.08%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.85%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
BR Berkshire Hathaway Inc 0.94%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 30.81%
Looking through the ETFs, the largest underlying exposures are familiar mega‑cap names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (both share classes), Broadcom, Meta, Tesla, and Berkshire Hathaway. Several of these appear in more than one ETF, especially across the S&P 500 and NASDAQ 100 funds, creating overlap. Overlap means a single company can influence the portfolio more than its apparent share in any one ETF. For example, NVIDIA and Apple together already account for significant total exposure across funds. Since only top‑10 holdings are included, actual overlap is likely higher, so true concentration in a handful of very large companies is meaningfully understated by this partial look‑through.
Factors
Factor exposure across value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility is broadly neutral, sitting in the 40‑60% range for each. Factors are like personality traits of investments — characteristics that research has shown can drive returns, such as cheapness (value) or stability (low volatility). A neutral profile means the portfolio behaves similarly to a broad market index rather than strongly leaning into or away from any specific factor style. This kind of factor balance can be beneficial because it avoids making big bets on one approach, like pure growth or deep value. It also means performance will mostly be explained by overall market moves and regional tilts, rather than specialized factor strategies.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 60.00% 58.5% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 20.00% 25.0% -
Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 20.00% 16.5%
Risk contribution shows how much each ETF adds to the portfolio’s overall volatility, which can differ from its simple weight. Here, the 60% S&P 500 fund contributes about 58% of total risk, roughly in line with its size. The NASDAQ 100 fund, at 20% weight, contributes around 25% of risk, meaning it punches above its weight — consistent with its more volatile, growth‑focused nature. The developed ex‑US fund contributes less risk than its 20% weight, reflecting slightly lower volatility and different regional drivers. This pattern is common: growth‑heavy funds often dominate the portfolio’s ups and downs, even when they’re not the largest holding, because their prices move more dramatically.
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 analysis suggests the current mix sits on or very near the frontier, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.67. The Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk above a risk‑free rate — like judging not just how fast you’re driving, but how safely given the road conditions. The optimal portfolio using the same three funds has a higher Sharpe of 0.87 with slightly lower risk, and the minimum‑variance version also scores higher on risk‑adjusted terms. That means, in theory, different weights among these same ETFs could squeeze a bit more efficiency out of the mix. Still, being close to the frontier is a positive sign that the current structure already uses its building blocks well.
Dividends
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets Index Fund ETF Shares 2.70%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.30%
The overall dividend yield is about 1.3%, with the US growth‑tilted NASDAQ fund yielding roughly 0.5%, the broad S&P 500 fund around 1.1%, and the developed ex‑US fund about 2.7%. Dividend yield is the annual cash payout as a percentage of price, like rent from a property relative to its value. This pattern — lower yields on growthier US tech exposure and higher yields abroad — is typical. In this portfolio, dividends are a modest but steady component of total return, with most of the heavy lifting coming from price growth rather than income. Reinvested dividends still help compound returns over time, even if the starting yield looks low.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%
The total ongoing fund cost (TER) is around 0.06% per year, driven by very low‑fee index funds at 0.03%, 0.05%, and 0.15%. TER, or total expense ratio, is like a small annual membership fee charged by the ETFs to cover management and operations. At this level, costs are impressively low and well below the average for actively managed funds, which often charge several times as much. Over long periods, saving even a few tenths of a percent per year can leave more in the portfolio, because money not paid in fees keeps compounding. This cost structure is a real strength of the portfolio, helping support better long‑term performance.
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