One trick pony pretending to be diversified by owning the same index fund twice
Report created on Sep 19, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
FX Fidelity 500 Index Fund
FXAIX - US3159117502 50.00% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 50.00%
This “portfolio” is just the S&P 500 in a trench coat made of… the S&P 500. Half in a Fidelity 500 index fund, half in a Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, both tracking essentially the same thing. That’s not a balanced mix, that’s copy‑pasting your homework and changing the font. The diversification score of 2/5 is generous; it’s really one idea in two wrappers. Structurally it’s clean and simple, but intellectually it’s a bit lazy. The main insight: all decisions here rise and fall with one index. If that index has a bad decade, this whole setup just politely goes down with it.
Growth
Historically, this clone stack has ridden the S&P wave nicely: $1,000 became $4,165, roughly 15.4% CAGR. That slightly edges the US market benchmark and comfortably beats the global market, so the ride has been fast – but not unique. Any plain S&P tracker did basically the same. The max drawdown of about -34% in early 2020 shows the downside is fully market-level too; there’s no cushion when the tide goes out. Also, 90% of returns came from just 38 days, which is classic equity behavior: miss a few good spikes and the whole story changes. Past data is helpful, but it’s yesterday’s weather, not a forecast.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection basically says, “Welcome to the stock market lottery, median edition.” Monte Carlo is just a fancy way of running thousands of random what‑if futures using past-style volatility and returns. Here, $1,000 most likely lands around $2,728 after 15 years, but could realistically finish anywhere from “barely above cash” to “nice, that worked out.” The possible range from about $1,004 to $7,371 screams uncertainty. With around a 74% chance of a positive result, the odds tilt in favor but hardly guarantee anything. The main takeaway: this is a straight equity ride. No hidden shock absorbers, no clever hedges, just you and the market roller coaster.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset class breakdown: 100% stocks, 0% everything else. This isn’t “balanced”; it’s all-in on one asset type with two logos. Calling this “Balanced Investors” is like calling an all-pizza diet “balanced carbs.” There’s no bonds, no cash buffer, no alternatives, no anything that behaves differently when stocks throw a tantrum. That’s fine if the goal is pure equity exposure, but it doesn’t deserve a diversity ribbon. In practice, the portfolio’s mood will be fully synchronized with the equity market’s, from euphoria to panic. There’s no shock absorber here, just a very clean, very pure stock bet in duplicate form.
Sectors
- Technology 38%
- Financials 12%
- Telecommunications 10%
- Health Care 9%
- Industrials 8%
- Consumer Discretionary 5%
- Consumer Discretionary 5%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Energy 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
- Basic Materials 2%
Sector exposure is basically “Tech and Friends featuring a guest appearance from Finance.” Technology at 38% is a serious tilt, not a side hobby. Financials, telecom, health care, and industrials fill in the middle, but tech is clearly driving the bus. The double listing of Consumer Discretionary at 5% is almost poetic: even the sector breakdown is repeating itself like the holdings. When nearly four out of every ten dollars lean on one broad theme, sector risk becomes a real character in the story. If that area cools off, this portfolio doesn’t just catch a cold – it gets the full seasonal flu.
Regions
- North America 100%
Geography: 100% North America. This portfolio behaves like the rest of the world doesn’t exist except as somewhere US companies sell to. There’s zero direct exposure to other regions, currencies, or local markets. That’s fine while the US is the main show, but it’s still a “home country or bust” attitude. It’s like building a restaurant chain in one city and calling it global. The upside is simplicity and familiarity; the downside is blind spot risk. If other regions have long stretches of outperformance or different cycles, this setup just shrugs and keeps chanting “USA, USA” regardless.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 45%
- Large-cap 35%
- Mid-cap 19%
- Small-cap 1%
Market cap exposure is mega‑cap royalty with a side of large and a token sprinkle of mid and small. Around 80% is jammed into mega and large caps, with small caps barely getting invited at 1%. This is basically a popularity contest where the cool kids own the cafeteria. That means the portfolio moves with the giants – big, global, index-dominating firms – and largely ignores scrappier smaller names that might behave differently. It’s stable in a “too big to ignore” way, but also heavily “top‑heavy.” When the mega caps sneeze, this portfolio doesn’t just notice; it grabs the tissue box.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 4.04%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc. 3.52%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 2.85%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.92%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.50%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.33%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.20%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 0.95%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 0.82%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 0.78%
Part of fund(s):- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 18.90%
The look‑through holdings scream “Big Tech Fan Club.” NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Broadcom, Meta, Micron, Tesla – the usual celebrity lineup, all coming from both wrappers. Since the analysis only uses ETF top‑10s, the true overlap is actually even worse than it looks. This is the same handful of megacap names appearing twice under different fund banners; it feels diversified but behaves concentrated. Hidden concentration here is simple: if one of these giants face‑plants, it hits multiple layers of the portfolio at once. This isn’t a mosaic of different ideas; it’s a gallery of the same ten posters on two different walls.
Factors
Factor-wise, this thing is hilariously “default.” Value, momentum, quality, and low volatility all sit basically neutral – like the portfolio shrugged and said, “Just give me the market average, I guess.” Size and yield are mildly low, meaning a slight lean away from smaller companies and from high-income stocks, but nothing extreme. Factor exposure is basically the ingredients list of how a portfolio behaves, and here it reads like the back of a generic cereal box. The upside: no accidental crazy tilts. The downside: there’s no edge or intentional flavor either. It’s pure index, almost aggressively so.
Risk contribution
-
Fidelity 500 Index Fund
Weight: 50.00% 50.1% -
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 50.00% 49.9%
Risk contribution is comically tidy: each 50% position contributes about 50% of the total risk, with a neat 1.0 risk/weight ratio. In other words, both halves of the portfolio pull exactly the same risk duty, because they’re clones. There’s no hidden wild child here; both positions are equally responsible for every wobble and crash. Risk contribution is supposed to reveal which holding secretly drives the drama, but this report just says: “Yes, both twins are equally loud.” Structurally it’s clean, but strategically it’s redundant. Two drivers, one car, same GPS, both floors on the same gas pedal.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationFidelity 500 Index FundVanguard S&P 500 ETF
Correlation report: the two funds move “almost identically.” That’s the polite quant way of saying, “You bought the same thing twice.” Correlation measures how often things move together; when it’s near 1, they’re basically dancing in sync. So when markets rip higher, great – both halves of the portfolio cheer. When markets tank, they hold hands and jump together. There’s no offset, no zig‑when‑others‑zag dynamic. In a crash, this setup doesn’t diversify the impact; it just confirms it. It’s not diversification, it’s redundancy with two brand names and slightly different tickers.
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 efficient frontier, this portfolio is accidentally impressive: it’s essentially sitting right on the curve. Same holdings, different weights wouldn’t meaningfully improve the Sharpe ratio; the “optimal” and “minimum variance” setups are virtually identical to what’s already here. The Sharpe of 0.67 versus a theoretical 0.83 using the given assumptions shows the structure is efficient for its chosen risk level. So the roast is not about efficiency – that part’s dialed in. The critique is bigger picture: it’s an efficient way of doing exactly one thing. Maximum optimization inside a very small, very narrow sandbox.
Dividends
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 1.00%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.00%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.00%
Dividend yield at 1% is pocket change in income terms. This isn’t an income engine; it’s a growth‑tilted bet with a token drip attached. Those dividends are more like a small cashback reward than an ongoing paycheck. Since both holdings are essentially the same index, there’s no diversification in payout style either – everything follows the same broad market dividend policy. In a roaring bull market, that’s fine; the action’s in price moves. But anyone hoping this setup quietly throws off meaningful cash on the side is basically asking a sprinter to moonlight as a rental property.
Ongoing product costs
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.02%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.02%
Costs are almost suspiciously low: around 0.02% TER overall. That’s “did they forget to charge you?” territory. You somehow managed to pay basically nothing to hold two versions of the same thing. Fees are not the villain here; if anything, they’re the only part that looks overachieving. The dry punchline: you’re running one of the cheapest ways possible to duplicate exposure. The structure is hyper‑efficient cost‑wise but conceptually boring. It’s like bragging about getting an incredible deal on two identical black t‑shirts – yes, it’s frugal, but it’s still just two of the same shirt.
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!
Compare your holdings
How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?
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