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.
Open the Portfolio Builder Reshape your holdings and watch every metric recalculate live. Try it Roast mode 🔥

Efficient on paper confusing in practice and slightly obsessed with indexing the same stuff twice

Report created on May 9, 2026

Risk profile Info

4/7
Balanced
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

5/5
Highly Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

Structurally this thing is a nesting doll of the same global equity story. A 65% all‑world fund does the heavy lifting, then you bolt on big chunks of US large caps (Nasdaq‑100 and S&P 500) plus separate Europe and emerging markets — all of which are already heavily inside that first fund. It’s like ordering the combo meal and then adding a burger, fries, and drink à la carte. The end result is less a carefully sculpted mix and more “index FOMO,” where every extra ETF mostly re‑buys what the first one already owns, just with different logos and slightly different seasoning.

Growth Info

On the tiny 1.1‑year track record, the portfolio looks like a genius: ~27% CAGR, turning £1,000 into about £1,305, slightly edging both US and global benchmarks with similar drawdowns around -10%. That’s impressive, but it’s like winning one lap in a marathon and declaring victory. One strong year dominated by buoyant large growth stocks says more about timing and luck than enduring skill or structure. The “10 days make 90% of returns” stat underlines it: miss a few party days and the story flips. Past data here is basically yesterday’s weather, not a climate study.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection is doing its best tarot‑card impression with very little history to work from. It spits out a median of ~£2,674 from £1,000 over 15 years, with “could be great, could be meh” ranges from roughly £921 to £6,935. That 7.7% annualized expectation is just a dressed‑up way of saying “equities usually pay you for the emotional trauma, but not always.” With only 1.1 years of data feeding the simulation, it’s leaning heavily on generic assumptions. So the future picture is more mood board than blueprint — directionally useful, statistically flimsy.

Asset classes Info

  • No data
    80%
  • Stocks
    20%

The asset class breakdown is basically screaming “we don’t really know” with 80% labeled “No data.” So the visible 20% in stocks is almost certainly understating the actual equity exposure, but we’re not allowed to pretend we know what’s hiding in that fog. From an analytical angle, that’s like doing a health check with 80% of the body under a blanket. What can be said: the named holdings are all equity ETFs, so the balanced label looks optimistic. This is functionally an equity engine with a blindfold over most of the dashboard.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    5%
  • Financials
    4%
  • Industrials
    2%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    2%
  • Telecommunications
    2%
  • Health Care
    2%
  • Basic Materials
    1%
  • Consumer Staples
    1%
  • Energy
    1%
  • Utilities
    1%

Sector data only covers a thin slice, but even that slice whispers the same story: broad, slightly tech‑tilted global equities. Technology leads, with financials, industrials, and consumer bits trailing behind, plus a sprinkling of everything else. Nothing here screams “wild sector bet,” but the Nasdaq‑100 layer quietly adds an extra tech and growth kick that the raw sector view underplays, due to limited coverage. It’s like looking at the appetizer menu and pretending it’s the whole restaurant. The visible spread looks balanced enough, yet the growth engine is probably louder than these percentages suggest.

Regions Info

  • North America
    5%
  • Europe Developed
    5%
  • Asia Emerging
    5%
  • Asia Developed
    3%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Latin America
    1%

The geographic snapshot is another partial X‑ray. You get a neat 5‑ish percent each in North America, developed Europe, and emerging Asia, then smaller crumbs elsewhere. That sounds admirably global until you remember this only reflects the narrow slice with full data, not the entire portfolio. Underneath, a giant all‑world ETF plus US‑heavy add‑ons probably tilt the real picture more towards the usual suspects. Still, as far as the disclosed slice goes, at least it isn’t “home bias UK edition.” The portfolio passes the basic geography test, even if the exam paper is mostly blank.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    10%
  • Large-cap
    7%
  • Mid-cap
    3%

Market‑cap wise, the portfolio is unapologetically a big‑company fan club: 10% mega‑caps, 7% large‑caps, and a token 3% mid‑caps in the visible portion. Small caps are basically ghosted. That means returns are chained to whatever the corporate giants decide to do — great when the titans are booming, less fun when the market darlings stumble. It’s like building a football team entirely from star forwards and assuming nobody will ever need to defend. This tilt is common in index land, but it does mean the portfolio lives or dies with the mood swings of the global mega‑cap clique.

True holdings Info

  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    1.43%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets UCITS ETF USD Accumulation GBP
  • Amazon.com Inc
    0.51%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco S&P 500 UCITS ETF
    • Invesco STOXX Europe 600 UCITS ETF
  • Tencent Holdings Ltd
    0.41%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets UCITS ETF USD Accumulation GBP
  • Novartis AG
    0.36%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco STOXX Europe 600 UCITS ETF
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    0.33%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco S&P 500 UCITS ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    0.32%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco S&P 500 UCITS ETF
  • Apple Inc
    0.30%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco S&P 500 UCITS ETF
  • Alibaba Group Holding Ltd
    0.29%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets UCITS ETF USD Accumulation GBP
  • Nestle S.A.
    0.24%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco STOXX Europe 600 UCITS ETF
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    0.23%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco S&P 500 UCITS ETF
  • Top 10 total 4.40%

The look‑through data barely scratches the surface (only 6.7% coverage), but even that limited peek shows the usual global heavyweights: TSMC, Amazon, Tencent, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Apple, Meta, and friends. No single name dominates yet, but duplication is clearly baked in — several of these appear across multiple ETFs. That means concentration risk is probably fatter than it looks from the high‑level weights. It’s like checking only the top few ingredients on three cereal boxes and finding “sugar” on all of them; you can guess what the rest of the bowl tastes like even if the label cuts off.

Risk contribution Info

  • Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumalation
    Weight: 65.00%
    63.2%
  • UBS Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF USD acc
    Weight: 15.00%
    18.6%
  • Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets UCITS ETF USD Accumulation GBP
    Weight: 10.00%
    9.1%
  • Invesco S&P 500 UCITS ETF
    Weight: 5.00%
    5.1%
  • Invesco STOXX Europe 600 UCITS ETF
    Weight: 5.00%
    4.0%

Risk contribution pulls back the curtain on who’s actually driving the drama. The 65% all‑world ETF delivers about 63% of total risk — fair enough. But add the Nasdaq‑100 and emerging markets, and the top three positions now generate over 90% of the portfolio’s volatility. The other two funds are basically background extras. That’s not automatically bad, it just means this “diversified” five‑fund lineup is really a three‑engine plane with two decorative stickers. When turbulence hits, it will be those three big positions doing the shaking, no matter how equal everything looked on a nice pie chart.

Redundant positions Info

  • Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumalation
    Invesco S&P 500 UCITS ETF
    High correlation

You’ve also got a pair of near‑clones: the all‑world ETF and the S&P 500 ETF move almost identically. That’s the joy of highly correlated assets — different tickers, same dance moves. In a crash, they’re not diversifiers, they’re synchronized diversifiers of sadness. Holding both is like backing up your phone to another phone that lives in the same pocket. Correlation isn’t evil, but stuffing multiple strongly linked funds into a small portfolio is more about comfort through familiarity than actual risk spreading. When things swing, they’re mostly going to swing together.

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 chart basically says: “You somehow didn’t mess this up.” The current mix is on or very near the efficient frontier, with a Sharpe ratio of 1.51 — between the minimum‑risk setup and the max‑Sharpe option. So, given these holdings and this short data window, the risk/return trade‑off is impressively sane. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect, just that re‑shuffling between the same five funds wouldn’t magically unlock huge gains per unit of risk. The structure may be a bit redundant and index‑obsessed, but at least it’s an efficient kind of redundant.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Invesco STOXX Europe 600 UCITS ETF 0.19%
  • Invesco S&P 500 UCITS ETF 0.05%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.01%

Cost‑wise, this portfolio is almost suspiciously sensible. Headline TERs of 0.19% for Europe and 0.05% for the S&P 500 put the total TER around 0.01% once everything’s blended — essentially couch‑cushion money. You’re not overpaying for fancy brochures or someone pretending to stock‑pick. The real comedy is that such a low‑fee setup is wrapped around a slightly over‑engineered bundle of overlapping indexes. So the costs are sharp, but the fund line‑up still feels like someone who buys three streaming services to watch one show on each, all produced by the same studio.

What next?

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