Two momentum ETFs walk into a bar and forget literally everything else about diversification
Report created on Jun 17, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
SP Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
SPMO - US46138E3392 50.00% -
FM MarketDesk Focused U.S. Momentum ETF
FMTM 50.00%
This “portfolio” is basically a coin flip between two nearly identical ideas: momentum in one ETF and, shockingly, momentum in another ETF. It scores low on diversification because it’s not really diversified; it’s just the same bet in two brand costumes. With only 1.2 years of history, it also has the attention span of a TikTok clip, so any talk of “long-term behavior” is pure fan fiction. Structurally, this is a one-trick pony that bought a mirror. When both halves of the portfolio follow the same playbook, the end result is not balance, it’s redundancy with extra paperwork.
Growth
One or more local-currency benchmark funds are unavailable for this report.
The performance chart looks like a victory lap: $1,000 turns into $1,655, pounding the global market, with a spicy 50% CAGR and only a -12% max drawdown. But that’s across just 1.2 years, which in market terms is one decent season, not a career. CAGR (compound annual growth rate) over a tiny window is like judging an athlete off one good game. Momentum strategies tend to look amazing in the right phase and brutal in the wrong one. Here, the roast is simple: the portfolio aced a short quiz and is parading around like it passed a 30‑year exam.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection is trying its best, but it’s basically guessing off a baby photo. With only 1.2 years of data, feeding this into simulations is like forecasting someone’s entire life from their kindergarten report card. Monte Carlo just runs thousands of “what if” paths using recent volatility and returns. It spits out a median of about $2,773 after 15 years, but the range from about $981 to $7,780 screams “we have no idea.” The numbers look neat, but they’re heavily built on a hot recent run from a momentum-heavy setup, which is exactly the kind of thing history likes to mean‑revert just to be petty.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset classes: all stocks, all the time, no breaks, no seatbelts. There’s zero presence of anything else – no bonds, no alternatives, no cash buffer beyond what’s in the ETFs – just 100% equity beta with a pedal‑to‑the‑metal style. That’s fine if the goal is pure growth exposure, but then don’t pretend this is some carefully layered asset mix. It’s basically Red Bull in portfolio form: exciting on the way up, shaky when conditions flip. When every dollar lives in the same risk bucket, the portfolio loses the one boring thing diversification is good at: smoothing out the pain when the party ends.
Sectors
- Technology 52%
- Industrials 16%
- Health Care 10%
- Financials 6%
- Telecommunications 6%
- Energy 3%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Consumer Staples 2%
- Consumer Discretionary 1%
- Utilities 1%
Sector-wise, this is a tech obsession dressed up as a portfolio. Over half the exposure is in technology, with the rest sprinkled lightly across other sectors like seasoning rather than actual ingredients. That’s typical for momentum screens lately, but it doesn’t change the reality: this isn’t a broad market approach, it’s a tech-led rocket with a few industrials and healthcare names duct‑taped on. The risk is that momentum eventually rotates, and when it does, the sector mix can flip fast. But right now, the portfolio is clearly surfing a narrow wave and pretending it’s an ocean. One ugly turn in that lead sector and everything feels it.
Regions
- North America 98%
- Europe Developed 2%
Geography here is basically “USA plus a sympathy 2% nod to Europe.” With 98% in North America, this supposedly growth‑minded setup acts like the rest of the planet is a rounding error. That might have worked recently, but it’s still a huge bet on one economic and political system, one currency, and one dominant market narrative. Global diversification isn’t about being virtuous; it’s about not having your entire fate tied to a single region’s cycle. This portfolio shrugs at that idea and doubles down on home bias. If North America sneezes, this thing catches the full flu, no mask, no backup plan.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 37%
- Mid-cap 30%
- Mega-cap 20%
- Small-cap 14%
The market cap mix is at least a little more interesting: a blend of mega, large, mid, and a noticeable chunk of small caps. But even that variety is just momentum in different clothing sizes. The small and mid-cap exposure adds extra kick to volatility without providing actual diversification of style. It’s like deciding to ride only fast horses, just some are taller and some are shorter. When conditions favor big, stable names, the smaller, racier stocks can pile on risk without offering much payoff. And again, with only 1.2 years of data, it’s impossible to say whether this blend behaves consistently; right now it just looks like “more risk stacked on risk.”
True holdings
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 5.49%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 4.10%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 3.27%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.26%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
-
JN Johnson & Johnson 2.03%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
-
LR Lam Research Corp 2.01%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
-
AM Advanced Micro Devices Inc 1.96%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
-
CR Carpenter Technology Corporation 1.92%
Part of fund(s):- MarketDesk Focused U.S. Momentum ETF
-
SN Synnex Corporation 1.86%
Part of fund(s):- MarketDesk Focused U.S. Momentum ETF
-
LS Landstar System Inc 1.85%
Part of fund(s):- MarketDesk Focused U.S. Momentum ETF
- Top 10 total 26.75%
The look‑through holdings scream concentrated themes masquerading as variety. Micron, NVIDIA, Broadcom, AMD, and Lam Research all showing up tells you exactly what kind of party this is: chipmakers and high‑beta names everywhere. With only top‑10 ETF data captured, overlap is likely worse under the hood than it looks. The same winners are being owned twice, through two different momentum wrappers, which means hidden concentration that doesn’t show up in the ticker list. When multiple ETFs share the same darlings, a bad day for those names ripples through everything. This isn’t redundancy as safety; it’s redundancy as echo chamber.
Factors
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 exposure is completely on‑brand: very low size, low value, high momentum. Translation: barely any tilt toward smaller companies, no love for cheap stocks, and a full send into whatever’s been working recently. Factor investing is like the flavor profile of a portfolio; this one is pure chili with no dairy. Leaning hard into momentum while ducking value means it thrives when trends persist and can get slapped when the market suddenly cares about fundamentals again. With low yield and low low‑vol, there’s no built‑in cushion. The portfolio has basically chosen “fast” over “sturdy” and then doubled it by using two momentum funds.
Risk contribution
-
Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
Weight: 50.00% 50.9% -
MarketDesk Focused U.S. Momentum ETF
Weight: 50.00% 49.1%
Risk contribution is hilariously simple: each ETF is half the weight and roughly half the risk. No hidden villain, no sneaky 3% position contributing 30% of volatility. Instead, both holdings are equally responsible for the drama. Risk contribution just shows which positions actually drive the ups and downs, and here the answer is “both of them, equally, because they’re the entire portfolio.” The problem isn’t imbalance; it’s that the only two drivers in the car are both flooring the same momentum pedal. So while the risk is neatly split, it’s still highly concentrated in one narrow style bet with nowhere else to hide when that bet misfires.
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 analysis is the one area where this portfolio accidentally looks smart. The current mix sits basically on the frontier with a Sharpe ratio close to the optimal and minimum-variance setups. Sharpe ratio is just return per unit of risk, and here the trade-off is impressively efficient… based on 1.2 years of turbo-charged returns. So internally, given these two ETFs and this very short window, the weights aren’t the problem. The roast is that the engine is tuned perfectly for a car that’s only been test-driven around the block. The math says “efficient,” but only within a very narrow and very recent reality.
Dividends
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF 0.70%
- MarketDesk Focused U.S. Momentum ETF 0.20%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.45%
Dividends are almost an afterthought: a combined yield of 0.45% is pocket change, not an income stream. That lines up with a momentum-heavy growth posture; the holdings are more about price swings than steady payouts. Dividend yield is basically how much cash companies send back regularly, and this portfolio clearly doesn’t care. That’s fine if the goal is pure capital appreciation, but it does mean all the heavy lifting must come from price performance. When the music slows, there’s very little in the way of boring, reliable income to soften the ride – just two high‑octane funds waiting for the next trend.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF 0.13%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%
Costs are the one unambiguously sane part of this setup. A total TER around 0.06% is impressively cheap, especially for something that isn’t just a plain vanilla broad index. It’s like accidentally wandering into first‑class pricing on a budget airline. The irony is that while the fees are ultra‑low, the risk concentration is ultra‑high. So the investor isn’t overpaying the managers; they’re just asking those managers to run the same risky playbook twice. Low cost doesn’t fix the structural bet, but at least no one’s getting fleeced on fees while riding this roller coaster.
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!
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