Roast mode 🔥

Almost smart globally diversified portfolio that cannot stop buying the same giant stocks on repeat

Report created on Apr 14, 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 it was built by someone who read one investing book and stopped halfway. Two broad global-ish funds at 30% each, then 20% in emerging markets value and 20% in Europe momentum. It’s like you wanted simple core holdings, then panic-added “smart” factor ETFs to feel clever. There are only four positions, all equity ETFs, so it’s tidy but also slightly lazy. For a “balanced” risk label, this is basically “stocks turned up to medium-high.” Takeaway: the structure is clean but intellectually confused — either be a boring global index hugger or commit properly to a factor tilt, not this half-committed mashup.

Growth Info

Historically, the portfolio has crushed it: €1,000 turning into €1,651 in under 2.5 years with a 22.73% CAGR. CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is basically “average speed of the money road trip,” and yours has been flooring it. You even outpaced both the US market and global market by about 5 percentage points a year, with a max drawdown of -20%, slightly gentler than the benchmarks. Past data, though, is yesterday’s weather — helpful, but not a prophecy. This level of outperformance is almost certainly helped by recent factor winners and tech-heavy overlap. Expecting that same 22% per year forever would be optimistic at best, delusional at worst.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection says: future returns will probably be fine, but not Instagram-brag fine. Monte Carlo just runs loads of alternate futures using historical-style patterns, like simulating 1,000 alternate timelines for your money. Median outcome: €1,000 becomes about €2,754 over 15 years, around 8.4% a year. Decent, but way lower than your recent 22% sugar high. There’s about a 75% chance of finishing ahead and a non-trivial chance of basically going nowhere after inflation. The possible range from about €976 to €8,609 is huge, which is the polite way of saying “equities are chaos, please buckle up.” Takeaway: nice odds, but not nearly as invincible as recent history might suggest.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset class breakdown: 100% stocks, 0% chill. For a “balanced” investor label, this is more “I like watching my net worth do backflips.” No bonds, no cash buffer, no diversifiers — just pure equity risk all the time. That’s fine if the time horizon is long and the stomach is strong, but it’s wildly optimistic if you care about short- to medium-term stability. When markets hit a rough patch, this setup doesn’t bend, it just falls with style. Takeaway: all-equity portfolios can work well, but they’re emotionally expensive. Calling this “balanced” is like calling espresso “hydration.”

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    27%
  • Financials
    19%
  • Industrials
    12%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    8%
  • Health Care
    8%
  • Telecommunications
    7%
  • Basic Materials
    5%
  • Energy
    5%
  • Consumer Staples
    4%
  • Utilities
    4%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Sector-wise, you’re riding the tech-and-finance train: 27% technology and 19% financials dominate the picture. Industrial, healthcare, and telecoms are there to make it look respectable, but this is basically a tech-tilted growth machine with a side of banks. That means a huge chunk of your fate depends on whether innovation darlings and the money plumbing of the world behave. If rates spike or tech sentiment turns, you’re not “a bit affected,” you’re sitting in the splash zone. Takeaway: heavy sector tilts are fine if intentional, but this looks more like drifting with the big indexes than a conscious choice.

Regions Info

  • North America
    50%
  • Europe Developed
    24%
  • Asia Developed
    11%
  • Asia Emerging
    8%
  • Latin America
    3%
  • Japan
    2%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Europe Emerging
    1%

Geographically, this is “America is the main character, but we’ll sprinkle in some others so it looks cultured.” About 50% in North America, 24% in developed Europe, and a smattering across developed Asia and emerging markets. Honestly, for a lot of investors, this is surprisingly reasonable: you’re not stuck in a home-bias bubble, and the rest-of-world slice isn’t a token 5%. Still, the US is doing most of the heavy lifting, which means you’re essentially betting that its dominance continues. Takeaway: global-ish is good, but don’t kid yourself — this is still very much US-led with some international seasoning.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    51%
  • Large-cap
    35%
  • Mid-cap
    13%

Market cap breakdown: 51% mega-cap, 35% large-cap, 13% mid-cap, and exactly 0% interest in the little guys. This is the portfolio equivalent of only trusting companies that already have their own airports. That keeps volatility somewhat in check compared to a small-cap-heavy approach, but it also means you’re leaning hard into whatever the mega-caps are doing — which right now is mostly tech and big, established names. Mid-caps get a polite invite; anything smaller is left outside in the rain. Takeaway: this is a stability-over-adventure tilt, whether that was the plan or just ETF side effects.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    3.69%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Apple Inc
    3.21%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    2.54%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
    • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
  • Microsoft Corporation
    2.30%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    1.80%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.48%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    1.29%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    1.21%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    1.10%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • SK Hynix Inc
    1.00%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
  • Top 10 total 19.62%

The look-through holdings scream “I love the mega-cap tech overlords but I pretend I’m diversified.” NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, TSMC — it’s basically the usual suspects hiding inside every ETF wrapper. Because the analysis only covers ETF top-10s, the overlap is actually under-reported, so the real concentration in these names is higher. So while you technically own hundreds or thousands of stocks, your real fate is welded to a handful of gigantic tech and semiconductor names. That’s like ordering a “tasting menu” and getting seven different versions of the same burger. Takeaway: don’t be fooled by fund count; hidden overlap is doing a lot of the heavy lifting here.

Risk contribution Info

  • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    Weight: 30.00%
    30.3%
  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
    Weight: 30.00%
    29.3%
  • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
    Weight: 20.00%
    20.6%
  • iShares Edge MSCI Europe Momentum Factor UCITS ETF EUR (Acc)
    Weight: 20.00%
    19.8%

Risk contribution is refreshingly boring here: each holding’s risk share is almost exactly its weight. The S&P 500 ETF is 30% weight and about 30% of risk, ACWI is the same, and the two factor ETFs also hover around their 20% weights. That means there’s no sneaky 5% position secretly driving 25% of the drama — everyone is pulling their fair share of chaos. Top three holdings still drive about 80% of total risk, but that’s just what happens when you only own four funds. Takeaway: structurally, risk is evenly spread, which is good — even if it’s evenly spread across nothing but stocks.

Redundant positions Info

  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
    SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    High correlation

The correlation section politely points out the obvious: your S&P 500 ETF and your ACWI ETF move almost identically. Correlation just means “do these things wiggle in the same direction at the same time,” and in this case the answer is “yep, pretty much.” So while it feels like diversification to own both, in practice you’re doubling down on a very similar global large-cap equity core with a heavy US tilt. It’s like buying two different brands of cola and calling it variety. Takeaway: correlated funds can still be fine, but don’t overestimate how different they really are in a crash.

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 front, the portfolio is awkwardly impressive. The current Sharpe ratio (return per unit of risk) is 1.28, while the “optimal” mix of these same funds hits 1.72 with higher return and slightly higher risk. The minimum variance option still has a better Sharpe than you at lower risk. Yet the analysis says you’re on or near the efficient frontier, meaning this setup isn’t dumb — it’s just not squeezing every drop of efficiency out. Takeaway: with only four ETFs, you’ve somehow landed close to optimal. Annoyingly competent, but with room to tighten the screws if anyone cared enough.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD 0.40%
  • iShares Edge MSCI Europe Momentum Factor UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) 0.25%
  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF 0.45%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.26%

Costs are… annoyingly sensible. A total TER around 0.26% is not dirt cheap, but it’s absolutely reasonable for a factor-flavored, global ETF mix. The ACWI ETF at 0.45% is the luxury guest at the party, with the others clustered a bit lower. Still, for a portfolio that’s not exactly original, you’re not overpaying wildly. Think economy class with a slightly nicer seat, not first-class champagne. Takeaway: fees are under control; the main question is whether you’re actually getting enough extra thought or edge to justify the complexity over a single broad, cheaper fund.

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