This portfolio is built from three broad stock funds, with 80% in an international index, 10% in a US small‑cap value ETF, and 10% in a total US market index fund. So it is fully invested in equities and leans strongly toward markets outside the US. A structure like this behaves more like a single global stock fund with a “booster” sleeve in smaller, cheaper US companies. Knowing this split matters because each piece responds differently to economic news, interest rates, and currency moves. The big international slice tends to follow global business cycles, while the smaller US pieces add a tilt toward domestic growth and value characteristics without dominating overall behavior.
From late 2019 to April 2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $2,105, which is a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 12.05%. CAGR is like the steady yearly speed you’d need to drive to cover the same distance as a stop‑and‑go road trip. Over this period, it lagged both the US market (15.89%) and the global market (13.48%), mainly reflecting its heavier non‑US exposure. The worst drop, or max drawdown, was about ‑35.7% during early 2020, similar in depth and speed to the benchmarks. This shows it behaved like a typical growth‑oriented equity portfolio: strong long‑term growth, but with sharp short‑term swings.
The Monte Carlo projection models 1,000 possible 15‑year paths using patterns from past returns and volatility. Think of it as rolling the dice many times with the same loaded probabilities the portfolio has shown historically. The median outcome grows $1,000 to about $2,708, with a “middle” band from roughly $1,826 to $4,202 and a wide range from about $899 to $7,741. The average simulated annual return is 8.18%, with positive results in about three‑quarters of simulations. This highlights the uncertainty: the same portfolio can lead to very different outcomes. As always, these simulations are educated guesses based on history, not promises about the future.
All of this portfolio is in stocks, with 0% allocated to bonds, cash, or alternative assets. That single‑asset‑class focus keeps things simple and fully growth‑oriented, but it also means there is no built‑in cushion from traditionally steadier assets during equity downturns. In diversified multi‑asset portfolios, bonds or cash often dampen volatility and can offset some stock market losses. Here, the diversification happens within global equities rather than across asset classes. This aligns with its “growth” risk label and helps explain the meaningful drawdowns observed in history and the relatively wide range of projected future outcomes in the simulations.
Sector exposure is broadly spread: financials are the largest slice at 23%, followed by technology at 17% and industrials at 15%, with the rest distributed across consumer areas, health care, energy, materials, and smaller allocations to utilities, telecom, and real estate. Compared with many global benchmarks where technology often dominates, this portfolio looks more balanced and a bit less tech‑heavy. That can mean less sensitivity to the ups and downs of a single high‑growth sector, but more dependence on economically cyclical areas like financials and industrials. This kind of mix tends to respond strongly to interest rate changes and overall economic health across different regions.
Geographically, this portfolio is truly global but notably underweight the US compared with typical world benchmarks. Roughly 30% is in developed Europe and 27% in North America, with significant exposure to Japan and other developed Asia, plus smaller slices in emerging Asia, Australasia, Latin America, and Africa/Middle East. Many global indices are roughly half in US stocks, so this allocation is more internationally tilted than “market weight.” That brings broader currency and economic diversification but also means performance can diverge from US‑centric portfolios, especially during periods when US stocks outperform or underperform the rest of the world by a wide margin.
By market cap, the portfolio leans toward larger companies but with meaningful exposure across the size spectrum. About 48% is in mega‑caps and 29% in large‑caps, while mid‑caps hold 12%, small‑caps 6%, and micro‑caps 5%. That creates a core anchored in big, established firms, with a noticeable but not dominant tilt toward smaller companies. Smaller and micro‑cap stocks tend to be more volatile and can swing more in both directions, but they have historically been associated with higher long‑term return potential. Here, the bulk in mega and large‑caps keeps overall behavior closer to broad market patterns, while the smaller‑cap slice adds extra punch and variability.
Look‑through data, based on only the top‑10 ETF holdings, covers less than 1% of the portfolio, so the overlap picture is very limited. The names that do appear, like ViaSat, Matson, and Five Below, each represent less than 0.15% of the total portfolio through the small‑cap value ETF. With such tiny weights and no direct single‑stock positions, there is no visible concentration in individual companies from this lens. Because most underlying holdings fall outside the reported top‑10 lists, hidden overlap between the US funds and the international fund is probably small but can’t be precisely measured with this partial data set.
Factor exposure shows clear tilts toward value and low volatility, with other factors roughly in line with the market. Value sits at 65%, meaning the portfolio leans toward stocks that are cheaper on fundamentals like earnings or book value. Low volatility at 73% indicates a tilt toward stocks that have historically had milder price swings than the market. Size, momentum, and quality are near neutral, so they behave broadly like a typical index. Yield is somewhat low at 32%, suggesting the focus is more on price appreciation than on high dividends. Together, this profile points to a defensive, value‑oriented equity style rather than a high‑growth, high‑momentum one.
Risk contribution measures how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. Here, the international index fund is 80% of the portfolio and contributes about 77% of total risk, very much in line with its size. The US small‑cap value ETF is only 10% by weight but contributes roughly 12.8% of risk, so it’s somewhat “spicier” than its share suggests, which is typical for small‑cap value strategies. The US total market fund’s risk share matches its weight closely. Overall, risk is concentrated in the big international holding, with an extra bump from the more volatile small‑cap slice.
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 shows this portfolio sitting on or very close to the efficient frontier, meaning its current mix of the three funds delivers a solid balance of risk and expected return based on historical data. The Sharpe ratio, which compares excess return to volatility, is 0.5 for the current portfolio versus 0.75 for the mathematically “optimal” mix and 0.62 for the minimum‑variance mix. That suggests modest room, in theory, to tweak weights among the same holdings to improve risk‑adjusted returns, but no glaring inefficiency. For a simple three‑fund setup, this is a strong sign that the allocation is already working effectively at its chosen risk level.
The overall dividend yield is about 2.23%, with the international index fund around 2.5%, the US total market fund near 1.0%, and the small‑cap value ETF at about 1.3%. Yield is the annual cash paid out as dividends relative to the portfolio’s value, and it can be an important part of total return, especially over long horizons. Here, dividends provide a modest income stream but not an especially high one, which fits the low yield factor score. Most of the portfolio’s historic growth has come from price increases rather than income. Reinvested dividends, however, still quietly contribute to compounding over time.
Costs are impressively low, with a total expense ratio (TER) around 0.02% thanks to the zero‑fee Fidelity funds and a 0.25% fee on the small‑cap value ETF. TER is the annual percentage the funds charge to cover management and operating costs, taken directly from fund assets. Keeping this number low means more of each year’s return stays in the portfolio instead of going to fees, and that effect compounds over decades. Relative to many actively managed or higher‑fee index products, this cost structure is very efficient. It provides a strong foundation where performance is driven mostly by markets and allocation choices rather than ongoing expenses.
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