This portfolio has only about 1.3 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 🔥

High octane stock rocket with concentration issues and vibes of a future volatility hangover

Report created on May 15, 2026

Risk profile Info

6/7
Aggressive
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

3/5
Moderately Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio looks like someone discovered stock picking and sector ETFs on the same weekend and put both on max volume. Ten positions, all stocks or stock funds, no ballast, nothing defensive, and a lot of faith in a handful of names pulling more than their weight. “Moderately diversified” is generous; it’s basically a few big sector bets wrapped in a thin ETF respectability layer. With only about 1.3 years of data, the current mix might look like genius or luck, but there’s zero evidence of any long-term pattern yet. Structurally, this is less a balanced portfolio and more a trading book that accidentally got labeled “investment.”

Growth Info

On paper, the past 1.3 years look heroic: turning $1,000 into $1,630 and trouncing both US and global markets. CAGR — the “average speed” over the trip — at 46% makes this look like a get-rich-now machine. Then reality taps you on the shoulder: a -32% max drawdown in just a couple of months. That’s rollercoaster territory, not retirement-cruise vibes. And those returns are concentrated in just 8 days, which means miss a handful of good days and the magic trick disappears. With such a short history, this performance says more about a lucky stretch of market weather than about any enduring brilliance.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection is basically a thousand “what if” timelines drawn from a very short and very spicy track record. Median outcome: $1,000 becomes about $2,702 over 15 years, with an 8% average annual return. The range is huge though: from roughly “you barely broke even” to “you crushed it,” which is what happens when you feed a volatile portfolio into a simulation. Past data here is like a 1.3-year highlight reel, not a full-season record, so the projections are more educated doodles than destiny. The takeaway: this thing can work out nicely or punch you in the face, and history doesn’t yet tell you which.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset class breakdown is easy: 100% stocks, 0% everything else. That’s not a portfolio; that’s an opinion. No bonds, no real estate, no cash sleeve with a job — just pure equity exposure. In calm markets, this looks bold. In ugly markets, it just means there’s nowhere to hide when everything risk-on gets smacked at once. Asset classes are like food groups: you don’t need all of them, but living on only one type makes you fragile. With limited history, this all-stock stance hasn’t been seriously stress-tested yet, so the real behavior in a long, grinding downturn is still a big blank.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    42%
  • Energy
    34%
  • Basic Materials
    10%
  • Health Care
    10%
  • Telecommunications
    2%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    1%
  • Consumer Staples
    1%

Sector-wise, this is a two-genre playlist: 42% technology and 34% energy, with basic materials and health care trying not to look like afterthoughts. That’s not diversification, that’s picking two rollercoasters in the park and calling it a theme park tour. Tech and energy both live on sentiment swings, policy shifts, and boom-bust cycles, just for different reasons. In a benign 1.3-year window, this looked brilliant; in a rough macro patch, both major bets could easily bleed at the same time. The tiny allocations to other sectors feel more cosmetic than genuinely risk-spreading. This portfolio clearly didn’t get the “broad sector mix” memo.

Regions Info

  • North America
    81%
  • Europe Developed
    19%

Geographically, this is very “America first, fine I’ll throw in some Europe”: 81% North America, 19% developed Europe, and basically zero elsewhere. It’s like a world map where half the continents got cropped out for space. That US tilt sometimes works out simply because US markets have been strong, but that’s a story of the last decade, not a law of physics. With only 1.3 years of data, the regional mix hasn’t really been stress-tested against a proper US vs rest-of-world cycle either. The portfolio behaves like it assumes the financial universe is mostly the US with a European side quest and nothing beyond that.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    66%
  • Mid-cap
    17%
  • Mega-cap
    16%
  • Small-cap
    1%

The market cap mix looks fairly mainstream at first glance: 66% large-cap, 16% mega-cap, 17% mid-cap, a token 1% small-cap. On paper, that’s roughly what a typical equity index might look like. The twist is that the wildest behavior is coming from specific names, not from a grand tilt toward tiny companies. So the cap breakdown looks balanced while the actual ride is anything but. Large and mega doesn’t automatically mean safe; it just usually means less ridiculous. Here, the stability implied by the cap mix gets undone by the sector bets and the handful of individual rocket-fuel stocks driving the drama.

True holdings Info

  • Marvell Technology Group Ltd
    11.78%
  • Applied Digital Corporation
    11.27%
  • Venture Global, Inc.
    10.71%
  • Diamondback Energy Inc
    9.88%
  • Rio Tinto ADR
    9.59%
  • Alkermes Plc
    9.17%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    3.33%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Apple Inc
    2.80%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Exxon Mobil Corp
    2.77%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
  • Chevron Corp
    2.04%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund
  • Top 10 total 73.35%

The look-through holdings read like a roll call of concentrated convictions. The top single names — Marvell, Applied Digital, Venture Global, Diamondback, Rio Tinto, Alkermes — are all held directly, not via ETFs. Then the ETFs quietly layer on big usual suspects like NVIDIA, Apple, Exxon, Chevron. Overlap isn’t outrageous, but the real story is that direct picks dominate risk while the ETFs mostly decorate around them. Because only ETF top-10s are captured, some hidden duplication is almost certainly lurking in the shadows. Net effect: this isn’t a neat ETF core with a few fun satellites; it’s a handful of stock bets with some index trackers stapled on for respectability.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 75%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 100%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Very high
Data availability: 75%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Neutral
Data availability: 63%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 80%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 89%

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, this portfolio is screaming momentum and whispering size. Momentum at 92% is a “very high” tilt — basically chasing what’s been working recently. Factor exposure is like the ingredient label; this one says “trend-chasing with extra spice.” Size at 12% means a strong tilt away from smaller companies — you’ve effectively voted for big and popular, not obscure and unloved. Neutral readings on value, quality, yield, and low volatility suggest no deliberate balance there; they mostly just landed around the market average by accident. With only 1.3 years of data feeding those numbers, the factor profile could change fast if momentum cools, which makes this feel more like surfing a wave than building a stable ship.

Risk contribution Info

  • Applied Digital Corporation
    Weight: 11.27%
    31.0%
  • Marvell Technology Group Ltd
    Weight: 11.78%
    18.1%
  • Venture Global, Inc.
    Weight: 10.71%
    17.5%
  • Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
    Weight: 12.22%
    7.8%
  • Diamondback Energy Inc
    Weight: 9.88%
    6.6%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 81.0%

Risk contribution is where the mask comes off. Applied Digital carries 11.27% of the weight but 31% of total risk — almost triple its share. Marvell and Venture Global pile in another 35% of risk between them. So three holdings at roughly a third of the portfolio weight are responsible for about two-thirds of the overall volatility. That’s not a portfolio, that’s a three-stock drama with supporting extras. Risk contribution measures who’s actually shaking the boat, and here a few names are throwing the party while the ETFs stand in the corner. One sharp move in those top three and the entire account feels it immediately.

Redundant positions Info

  • Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
    Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    High correlation

The asset correlation section is short and loud: the Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF and the Vanguard tech ETF move almost identically. That’s like buying two different branded sodas and discovering they’re literally the same drink in separate cans. High correlation means when one zigs or zags, the other is probably doing something similar, so they don’t really diversify each other in a crash. In a tech-led drawdown, both will happily sink in sync. Combined with individual tech names elsewhere, this duplication just amplifies exposure to the same theme. You get the illusion of variety — different tickers, same movie.

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 absolutely drags this portfolio. At its current risk level, it sits a full 29 percentage points below where it could be using the same ingredients but smarter weights. The Sharpe ratio — think “return per unit of pain” — is 1.23, while the optimally weighted version hits 2.21 with slightly less risk and massively higher return. The minimum-variance mix still beats this portfolio’s risk-adjusted profile. Translation: the recipe is fine, the portion sizes are chaos. You’ve chosen a combination that delivers more drama than reward, which is impressive given how strong the underlying assets have been in this short window.

Dividends Info

  • Devon Energy Corporation 2.00%
  • Diamondback Energy Inc 2.00%
  • Marvell Technology Group Ltd 0.10%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
  • Rio Tinto ADR 3.70%
  • Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares 0.30%
  • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund 2.60%
  • Venture Global, Inc. 0.50%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.04%

Dividend yield clocks in around 1.04%, which is basically the portfolio saying, “You’ll get your excitement in price swings, not in cash.” A few names throw off reasonable income — Rio Tinto, energy names, the sector ETF — but the overall stream is closer to pocket change than paycheck. That’s consistent with momentum and growth tilts: you’re buying stuff for potential appreciation, not for steady cheques. With just 1.3 years of history, even this yield picture isn’t exactly stable; payouts in cyclical sectors can swing around hard. Income is clearly a background character here, not part of the main script.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
  • Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares 0.10%
  • Energy Select Sector SPDR® Fund 0.09%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.04%

Costs are the one area where this portfolio isn’t lighting money on fire. TERs of 0.09–0.15% on the ETFs and an overall fee drag of around 0.04% are impressively low. That’s “you actually picked the cheap versions” territory, not the usual “why are you paying premium for the same index?” story. Of course, saving a few basis points on fees while a handful of positions inject huge volatility is a bit like haggling over parking while buying a sports car you can’t really control. Still, credit where due: at least the house isn’t skimming much off the top while you ride this rollercoaster.

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