Tech tilted US comfort blanket disguised as a balanced globally diversified portfolio
Report created on Apr 11, 2026Risk 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
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 50.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 18.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 17.00% -
AV Avantis® International Equity ETF
AVDE - US0250727031 15.00%
Structurally this portfolio is a pretty straightforward “USA or bust” equity smoothie with a tiny international garnish. Half is plain S&P 500, then you slam on an extra NASDAQ 100 turbocharger and a big scoop of US dividend ETF, plus one lonely international fund trying to justify the word “global.” For something labeled “balanced,” it’s 100% stocks with zero shock absorbers – more sports car than family sedan. The mix screams “I like what made money recently and I’m not overthinking this.” Takeaway: if the goal is growth with moderate drama, fine; if “balanced” means actually smoothing the ride, this isn’t it.
Growth
Performance since 2020 is solid: $1,000 to $2,075, a 14.28% CAGR. CAGR is just your average yearly speed on this roller coaster. You narrowly trailed the US market but beat the global market, which basically means you hugged the US hard and got paid for it. Max drawdown at -24.95% was a bit uglier than the benchmarks, and it took over a year to crawl back. Translation: you get market-like returns with slightly extra drama when things drop. Past data is yesterday’s weather though – helpful to see the climate, useless for predicting the next storm.
Projection
The Monte Carlo simulation basically runs 1,000 alternate futures and asks, “How badly can this go, and how nicely might it surprise you?” Median outcome: $1,000 grows to around $2,735 in 15 years, with a wide likely range from about $1,726 to $4,102. Worst-ish scenarios barely break even; best ones look like lottery tickets. That 7.95% annualized across all simulations is much more boring than your backtested 14% – welcome to reality. Simulations are like weather models: countless paths, none guaranteed. Takeaway: expect decent odds of growth, but not a straight line and definitely not a rerun of 2020–2024.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset class “diversification” here is basically: stocks, stocks, and… more stocks. It’s 100% equities, no bonds, no cash buffer, no real diversifiers. For someone tagged “balanced,” this is more like a gym bro who only trains chest and arms. When markets run, this looks great; when they fall, you’re riding the full elevator down with almost nothing to slow the drop. That’s fine if the time horizon is long and nerves are steady, but it’s not for people who panic-sell when headlines get loud. Takeaway: if smoother swings ever become a priority, something other than stocks has to be invited to the party.
Sectors
- Technology 29%
- Financials 11%
- Telecommunications 10%
- Health Care 10%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Industrials 9%
- Consumer Staples 8%
- Energy 6%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector-wise, this is a tech-flavored equity stew with a side order of everything else. Technology at 29% is the main character; financials, telecom, health care, and consumer discretionary are backup dancers. Utilities and real estate barely exist, like you invited them just to be polite. This tilt means you live and die by growth-heavy, market-darling parts of the economy. When innovation and risk-on mood rule, you look smart; when sentiment flips, the pain clusters in exactly where you’re overloaded. Takeaway: sector exposure isn’t outrageous, but let’s not pretend this is neutral – you’ve definitely picked a favorite child.
Regions
- North America 86%
- Europe Developed 8%
- Japan 3%
- Australasia 1%
Geographically, this thing has never really left North America. About 86% sits there, with Europe, Japan, and Australasia getting pocket change. That “international exposure” is more like ordering a side salad and calling it a lifestyle change. The upside: you’ve been riding the region that’s dominated recent returns. The downside: you’re betting heavily that this dominance keeps going while most of the world’s economic and demographic story happens elsewhere. Takeaway: it’s fine to be home-biased, just don’t confuse “mostly home” with “globally diversified.” The passport is technically stamped, but barely.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 42%
- Mega-cap 37%
- Mid-cap 18%
- Small-cap 2%
The market-cap breakdown screams “I only trust the giants.” Mega-cap plus large-cap make up a chunky majority, while mid-caps are supporting acts and small-caps are almost a rounding error at 2%. That means you’re effectively outsourcing your future to the biggest, most widely owned names. Those are usually more stable than tiny companies, but they can also be slower and more crowded. When big-tech-led rallies dominate, this feels genius; if leadership ever rotates to smaller or more niche names, you’ll be under-participating. Takeaway: it’s a comfortable profile, but don’t pretend you’re capturing the full size spectrum in any meaningful way.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 5.22%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 4.69%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.48%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.56%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.17%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.82%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.81%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.81%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.60%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
BR Berkshire Hathaway Inc 0.79%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 25.95%
Under the hood this thing is a MAG7 appreciation society. NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (twice), Meta, and Tesla all show up, stacked across multiple ETFs like you clicked “more of the same” three times. That creates hidden concentration: you think you’re diversified, but a handful of mega tech and growth names quietly steer the ship. And remember, this is only from ETF top 10s, so the overlap is almost certainly understated. Takeaway: if these darlings stumble together, you don’t just trip, you eat pavement. Overlap isn’t evil, but it’s definitely not invisible.
Factors
Factor exposure is almost suspiciously normal. Everything hovers around neutral: value, size, momentum, quality, yield, low volatility – all basically market-like. Factors are the hidden flavors that explain why portfolios act the way they do, and here you’ve somehow mixed them into a very beige soup. The upside: no accidental wild bets on junky momentum or ultra-low volatility. The downside: there’s no intentional edge either; you’re riding the broad market factors without a strong opinion. It looks less like a grand design and more like assembling popular ETFs and accidentally landing on balanced ingredients. Not flashy, but honestly pretty sane.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 50.00% 51.4% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 18.00% 23.1% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 17.00% 12.8% -
Avantis® International Equity ETF
Weight: 15.00% 12.7%
Risk contribution exposes who’s actually shaking the portfolio, not just who’s taking up space. The S&P 500 ETF is 50% weight and about 51% of the risk – fair enough, it’s doing its job. The NASDAQ 100 at 18% weight causes 23% of total risk, clearly the drama queen in the group. The dividend and international funds are basically the sensible adults, contributing less risk than their weights. With the top three positions causing over 87% of risk, you’ve effectively got a three-engine plane with one engine (NASDAQ) occasionally overheating. Takeaway: trimming or capping that one hothead could tame swings without changing the overall story.
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, this portfolio is basically sitting right on the efficient frontier, which is the “best you can do” curve using your current ingredients. Sharpe ratio of 0.72 vs 0.90 for the optimal mix means you’re a bit less efficient than you could be, but not embarrassing. The optimizer shows you could slightly lower risk while keeping similar returns by reweighting, but there’s no disaster here. In plain English: you somehow managed not to screw up the mix of what you already own. That’s rarer than it should be. Still, modest tweaks could squeeze more comfort out of the same stuff.
Dividends
- Avantis® International Equity ETF 2.60%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.61%
That 1.61% total yield isn’t exactly “income investor” material. It’s more like pocket change with one strong contributor: the dividend ETF doing the heavy lifting at 3.40%, while NASDAQ basically pays in vibes. This setup says growth first, income very distant second. Nothing wrong with that, just don’t pretend this is some dependable cash-flow machine. In a low-yield world, this is normal, but if someone expects meaningful living expenses from it, reality will be rude. Takeaway: think of dividends here as a mild bonus, not a pillar of the strategy. Capital growth is clearly the main event.
Ongoing product costs
- Avantis® International Equity ETF 0.23%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.09%
Costs are honestly annoyingly good for anyone trying to roast them. A 0.09% total TER is basically couch-cushion money in fee terms. Vanguard at 0.03% and Schwab at 0.06% are bargain-bin levels; even the “expensive” Avantis fund is still reasonable. You’re getting a market-hugging portfolio without tipping too much to the fee vampires, which is rare enough that it deserves a slow clap. Takeaway: cost-cutting is one area that doesn’t need fixing. Just don’t waste this advantage by layering on silly trading or chasing shiny new funds later. You actually did click the right ETFs here.
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