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.
The portfolio is very simple yet purposeful, holding just two ETFs: a global total US market fund and an international small-cap value fund, with a clear tilt toward the latter. About two-thirds goes into international small value and about one-third into the broad US market. This structure mixes a diversified “core” with a strong “tilt” toward a specific style. Simpler portfolios like this are easier to monitor and stick with through market ups and downs. The main takeaway is that this setup is intentionally focused rather than scattershot, aiming to capture a specific return pattern instead of mirroring the broad global market exactly.
From late 2019 to March 2026, $1,000 grew to about $2,354, implying a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.05%. CAGR is the “average yearly speed” of growth, smoothing out the bumps along the way. That slightly beats the US market’s 14.38% and comfortably beats the global market’s 11.92%. The price of this outperformance was a deeper max drawdown of about -39%, compared with roughly -34% for the benchmarks. This shows a clear pattern: accepting somewhat sharper drops has historically been rewarded with higher returns. Of course, past performance does not guarantee future results, but it does show the strategy has been effective in recent years.
The portfolio sits 100% in stocks, with no allocation to bonds, cash, or alternative assets. That’s firmly in “growth investor” territory, prioritizing long-term appreciation over short-term stability. All-equity allocations tend to experience bigger drawdowns but also higher expected returns over long horizons. This structure assumes the investor can ride out multi-year declines without needing to sell. It also means there’s little natural ballast during equity bear markets. For someone with a long time horizon and stable income, this can be appropriate. For anyone with shorter horizons or lower risk tolerance, adding a small slice of defensive assets might smooth the ride, even if it trims expected returns.
Sector exposure is nicely spread: industrials lead, with technology, basic materials, financials, and consumer discretionary all substantial, plus smaller slices in energy, healthcare, telecoms, staples, utilities, and real estate. This looks more balanced than many modern portfolios that are heavily dominated by technology. A balanced sector mix helps reduce the risk that a single economic trend or regulatory change hits the whole portfolio at once. For example, if high interest rates hurt one sector, others may hold up better. This allocation is well-balanced and aligns closely with diversified global norms, suggesting sector risk is thoughtfully managed rather than overly concentrated in a single area.
Geographically, roughly 44% is in North America, with strong representation in developed Europe and Japan, plus smaller allocations to Australasia, Africa/Middle East, and developed Asia. Compared with typical global benchmarks that lean more heavily toward the US, this allocation looks more internationally diversified and less US-centric. That can help if non-US markets outperform after a long stretch of US dominance. It also introduces more currency exposure and different economic cycles, which can both help and hurt in different periods. Overall, the geographic spread is broad and thoughtful, providing meaningful diversification across multiple developed regions while not being overly tied to a single country.
Market capitalization exposure is quite distinctive: mid-caps and small-caps dominate, with only modest exposure to mega and large caps and a small slice in micro-caps. This is a classic size tilt, intentionally emphasizing smaller companies, which historically have offered higher long-term expected returns but with more volatility and longer dry spells. The presence of mega-caps through the US total market ETF adds stability and liquidity, but the portfolio clearly leans away from the biggest names. This design can lead to periods of lagging the market when large growth stocks dominate, and then strong catch-up when smaller companies have their cycle. Patience is key for this kind of style.
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, large US growth names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla, and Broadcom show up meaningfully, even though the overall design is tilted to small value internationally. This is a reminder that a “core” index fund still concentrates a lot of weight in the biggest global companies. There is some overlap between these mega-cap names across the holdings, which can create hidden concentration in a handful of firms driving returns. Because only top-10 ETF holdings are included, this overlap is likely understated. The key insight is that even a value-tilted strategy still carries meaningful exposure to dominant global growth companies.
Factor exposure is where this portfolio really stands out. It has very strong tilts toward value and size (favoring cheaper, smaller companies), with a solid positive momentum tilt and neutral-ish exposure to low volatility. Factor investing targets characteristics—like cheapness, size, or recent strength—that research has linked to long-term returns. A portfolio like this tends to do well in environments where beaten-down smaller companies recover and where trends persist, but it may lag when large, expensive growth stocks lead the market. The strong factor tilts are intentional and can be powerful over decades, though they require emotional resilience when these styles fall out of favor for extended periods.
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs. Here, each ETF’s share of risk is almost exactly in line with its weight: the Avantis fund is about 64% of the portfolio and roughly 64% of the risk, and the Vanguard fund is similarly aligned. That’s a sign of a well-balanced pairing, with no stealth “risk hog” hiding in the background. In some portfolios, a single volatile holding drives far more risk than its size suggests, but that’s not the case here. Any future tweaks would mostly be about changing the overall level of risk, not correcting an internal imbalance between the two positions.
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, optimal portfolio, and minimum-variance portfolio are essentially identical in return and risk, with Sharpe ratios clustered tightly around 0.69–0.75. The Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of volatility, like miles per gallon for investing. The “same-risk optimized” version offers only a tiny boost in expected return for slightly higher risk. This tells us the current mix of the two ETFs already sits very close to the efficient frontier given the available holdings. Any theoretical improvement from reweighting is marginal. In practice, this means the existing allocation is already highly efficient and doesn’t show obvious internal inefficiencies to address.
The portfolio’s blended dividend yield sits around 2.41%, combining higher income from the international small-cap value ETF (~3.1%) with the lower yield of the broad US market ETF (~1.2%). Dividends are cash payments from companies, and they can be an important contributor to total return, especially over long periods when reinvested. This yield is reasonably attractive for a growth-oriented all-equity approach, providing a modest income stream without sacrificing the underlying growth tilt. For investors focused primarily on capital appreciation, this is a nice bonus rather than the core objective. Over decades, reinvested dividends can significantly boost wealth, even if the headline yield looks moderate.
The weighted average cost (TER) is around 0.24%, driven mainly by the higher-cost but more specialized Avantis fund (0.36%) and offset by the ultra-low-cost Vanguard ETF (0.03%). TER, or total expense ratio, is the annual fee charged by a fund, quietly reducing returns in the background. For a strongly factor-tilted, international small-cap strategy, 0.36% is quite reasonable, while 0.03% is exceptionally low. Overall, the costs are impressively low, supporting better long-term performance. Shaving even a fraction of a percent off fees can compound meaningfully over decades, so this fee level is a definite strength and aligns well with best practices in long-term investing.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
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