Roast mode 🔥

Tech worship with a side of closet indexing and a mild allergy to diversification

Report created on Apr 7, 2026

Risk 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

This portfolio looks like you opened the “Top 10 US stocks by hype” list and just started shoveling in weights. Apple at almost 20%, then a tight cluster of mega-cap darlings around 10% each, plus a couple of funds that basically buy the same names again just to be sure. It’s technically a portfolio, but really it’s a fan club for a handful of US giants. That 2/5 diversification score is generous; this is more “house party” than “proper event.” The big picture takeaway: one or two bad years for a few tech and growth icons and this thing’s mood will swing harder than its owner.

Growth Info

The past performance is the stuff of legend and also exactly how people get overconfident. Turning $1,000 into $8,685 since 2019 with a 37.46% CAGR is bonkers territory. For context, the US market plodded along at 14.6% and global at 12.13%, while you basically strapped yourself to a rocket. Max drawdown at -37.97% was deeper than the benchmarks, but honestly, with this lineup, it could’ve been worse. Remember: CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is like your average speed on a road trip; this one had a serious tailwind. Past data = yesterday’s weather: impressive, but absolutely not a guarantee the storm clouds never show up.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo simulation basically asks, “What if markets roll dice on you for 15 years?” It runs a thousand alternate futures based on historical behavior and spits out ranges. Median outcome of $2,747 from $1,000 with an 8.15% annualized return is solid but nowhere near that glorious backtest. The possible range from about $938 to $7,735 screams, “You could double your money or go almost nowhere.” And 73% odds of a positive outcome means a 27% chance that, after 15 years, you might be unimpressed. Simulations are just fancy weather forecasts: they show what *could* happen, not what *will*. With a portfolio this aggressive, the spread in outcomes makes sense.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset classes: 100% stocks. That’s it. No bonds, no cash buffer, no anything-else — just pure equity energy. It’s the financial equivalent of cutting the seatbelts out of your car to save weight. For an “Aggressive” risk classification, this lines up, but let’s not pretend it’s nuanced. Asset allocation is usually like building a meal — some protein, some carbs, a vegetable or two. Here, it’s just shots. The upside is maximum participation when markets soar. The downside is you feel every bump. Takeaway: this setup screams long time horizon and a high tolerance for watching account values yo-yo.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    40%
  • Financials
    21%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    13%
  • Telecommunications
    13%
  • Health Care
    9%
  • Energy
    2%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    1%
  • Industrials
    1%
  • Consumer Staples
    1%

Sector breakdown screams tech obsession with a side of “I guess banks and healthcare exist.” Technology at 40% is full-on addiction. Financials at 21% and consumer discretionary plus telecom each at 13% show that you’re mostly betting on growth, spending, and big platforms. Real economy variety — the boring stuff that often stabilizes portfolios — is basically an afterthought. This kind of tilt works beautifully in tech-fueled bull markets and feels like a bad hangover when that trade unwinds. Takeaway: heavy sector bets mean your portfolio’s fate is tied to a few big themes, not the broader economy.

Regions Info

  • North America
    99%

Geography: 99% North America. So, the rest of the world apparently doesn’t exist or at least doesn’t deserve capital. This is the classic “home bias” dialed up to 11. Yes, US markets have been the prom king for over a decade, but that’s exactly why people get blindsided when leadership rotates. A more global mix typically smooths out country-specific messes; here, one big US problem hits everything at once. It’s like putting all your career hopes into one company town staying hot forever. Takeaway: this isn’t global investing; it’s patriotic gambling.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    88%
  • Large-cap
    8%
  • Mid-cap
    3%

Market cap exposure is basically a love letter to mega-caps: 88% in mega, 8% in large, 3% in mid. Small caps are missing like they weren’t even invited. This means you’re tied to the giants — stable-ish, very news-sensitive, and already heavily owned by everyone else. When big caps lead, this feels genius. When smaller companies have their moment, you’ll be watching from the sidelines. Also, mega-caps can become more bond-like over time: decent but not explosive. Takeaway: this is less “broad market” and more “top of the food chain only.”

True holdings Info

  • Apple Inc
    20.11%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Direct holding 19.79%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    11.68%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Direct holding 11.31%
  • Amazon.com Inc
    11.14%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Direct holding 10.95%
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    10.88%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Direct holding 10.74%
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co
    8.48%
  • Johnson & Johnson
    7.77%
  • Berkshire Hathaway Inc
    6.36%
  • Mastercard Inc
    2.90%
  • Microsoft Corporation
    1.87%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Direct holding 1.63%
  • Chevron Corp
    1.48%
  • Top 10 total 82.67%

The look-through is basically a roll call of the same celebrities showing up on multiple stages. Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, Alphabet, and Microsoft are held directly and then sneak back in via QQQ and the funds. Apple total exposure at 20.11%, Nvidia at 11.68%, Amazon at 11.14% — that’s concentration dressed up as “multiple positions.” And note: this overlap is probably understated because we only see ETF top 10 holdings. Hidden overlap like this is how people think they’re diversified when they’ve just bought the same headliners via three different tickets. Takeaway: if the same names dominate everywhere, you don’t own a crowd, you own a clique.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Low
Data availability: 100%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Low
Data availability: 100%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 100%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
High
Data availability: 100%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Low
Data availability: 79%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 100%

Factor exposures are estimated using statistical models based on historical data and measure systematic (market-relative) tilts, not absolute portfolio characteristics. Results may vary depending on the analysis period, data availability, and currency of the underlying assets.

Factor-wise, you’ve built a shrine to quality and turned your back on value. Quality at 73% (high) says you like durable, profitable, blue-chip names — fair enough. Value at 35% and size at 22% (both low) means very little love for cheap or smaller companies. Momentum and low volatility sitting around neutral are surprisingly sane for such a concentrated book. Factor exposure is basically the ingredient label: you’ve chosen “expensive, dominant winners” over “cheap underdogs.” This does great when markets reward safety and growth, and it struggles if there’s a regime shift where beaten-down, unloved stuff suddenly runs.

Risk contribution Info

  • Apple Inc
    Weight: 19.79%
    22.1%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    Weight: 11.31%
    19.7%
  • Amazon.com Inc
    Weight: 10.95%
    12.2%
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    Weight: 10.74%
    11.3%
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co
    Weight: 8.48%
    6.9%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 72.1%

Risk contribution tells you who’s actually driving the drama, and no surprise: it’s the usual suspects. Apple is 19.79% of weight but 22.09% of risk — the main character. Nvidia is the crazy one: 11.31% weight but 19.69% of risk; that position is punching way above its pay grade with a risk/weight of 1.74. Top 3 holdings together drive 53.93% of total risk. So more than half your portfolio’s mood swings come from three names. Risk contribution is basically asking, “Who’s shaking the boat?” Here, a couple of stocks are doing all the rocking. Trimming or capping such positions is how people avoid emotional whiplash.

Redundant positions Info

  • GROWTH FUND OF AMERICA CLASS A
    Invesco QQQ Trust
    AMCAP FUND CLASS A
    High correlation

Your correlated assets list is basically three ways of saying “I like large US growth.” Growth Fund of America, AMCAP, and QQQ are all dancing to almost the same tune. Correlation just measures how often things move together; high correlation means if one dives, the others probably follow. Owning multiple things that behave identically is like having three umbrellas that all leak in the same place. It looks like diversification on paper — funds, ETF, different names — but in a crash, they all fall in line. The roast: you’ve paid for multiple wrappers to get more of what you already own directly.

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 risk–return chart, your portfolio is proudly sitting *below* the efficient frontier — 7.59 percentage points below, to be precise. The efficient frontier is just the curve of “best possible return for each level of risk” using the stuff you already hold. Your Sharpe ratio (return per unit of risk) is 0.99, while the optimal mix of your existing holdings clocks in at a chunky 1.44. Translation: with just different weights, no new assets, you could have had much better risk-adjusted results. You didn’t build a terrible set of ingredients; you just mixed them like someone pouring random liquor into a blender.

Dividends Info

  • Apple Inc 0.40%
  • GROWTH FUND OF AMERICA CLASS A 11.60%
  • AMCAP FUND CLASS A 9.50%
  • BlackRock Inc 2.20%
  • VictoryShares US Large Cap High Div Volatility Wtd ETF 3.20%
  • Chevron Corp 3.50%
  • Alphabet Inc Class C 0.30%
  • The Home Depot Inc 2.80%
  • Johnson & Johnson 2.20%
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co 1.50%
  • Mastercard Inc 0.60%
  • Microsoft Corporation 0.90%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.50%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.45%

Total yield at 1.45% confirms it: this portfolio is here to grow, not to pay your bills. The headline yields on those two active funds (11.60% and 9.50%) look suspiciously like distributions packed with capital gains or one-offs — not a stable paycheck. The more normal income names (Chevron, J&J, BlackRock, Home Depot, the dividend ETF) are tiny sideshows in the overall weight. If your plan was income, this is not it. Takeaway: this setup is fine for someone who doesn’t need cash flow yet and cares more about compounding than collecting.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • GROWTH FUND OF AMERICA CLASS A 0.59%
  • AMCAP FUND CLASS A 0.64%
  • VictoryShares US Large Cap High Div Volatility Wtd ETF 0.35%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%

Costs are a mixed bag with a mostly happy ending. Those active mutual funds at 0.59% and 0.64% are not cheap in a world where index funds often live under 0.10%. QQQ at 0.20% and the dividend ETF at 0.35% are fine. But the real punchline is the overall TotalTER at 0.06% — impressively low, probably because the bulk is in individual stocks. That’s the part you accidentally nailed: you managed to build a concentrated, spicy portfolio without lighting money on fire in fees. Still, paying up for active funds that hug growth benchmarks is… generously suboptimal.

What next?

Ready to invest in this portfolio?

Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.

Select broker

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