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.
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.
The portfolio is a four‑fund, 100% stock mix with a strong US focus and clear tilts. A broad total US market ETF forms the core at 40%, giving exposure from mega‑cap down to micro‑cap. Around it sit three sizable “satellite” positions: a 20% slice in US small cap value, 20% in a NASDAQ 100 tracker, and 20% in an energy sector fund. Structurally, this is a concentrated equity portfolio with deliberate style and sector bets layered on top of a diversified core. That combination can be powerful for return seekers, but it naturally pushes risk, volatility, and potential tracking error away from simple market‑cap benchmarks.
From late 2020 to March 2026, $1,000 grew to about $2,686, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) near 20%. CAGR is the “smooth” yearly growth rate, like averaging your speed over a road trip. This comfortably beat both the US and global equity markets over the period, while also having a shallower max drawdown of about -20% versus roughly -24% to -26% for the benchmarks. Max drawdown captures the worst peak‑to‑trough fall, which matters for emotional and financial staying power. These strong historical results are impressive, but they reflect a period that was particularly favorable for the portfolio’s factor and sector tilts, so they shouldn’t be assumed going forward.
All capital is invested in stocks, with 0% in bonds, cash, or alternatives. That all‑equity stance fits a growth‑oriented mindset and maximizes long‑term upside potential, since stocks historically have outperformed safer assets over long horizons. The trade‑off is sharper drawdowns and more frequent swings, especially during recessions or risk‑off periods. Many diversified benchmarks blend in bonds to smooth volatility and provide a buffer during equity sell‑offs. Running a 100% stock allocation can work well for investors with steady income, long horizons, and strong tolerance for market swings, but it leaves very little built‑in defense if several weak years arrive in a row.
Sector exposure is notably tilted, with energy and technology together accounting for roughly half of the equity allocation. A dedicated energy ETF at 20% plus energy names in broad funds pushes that sector far above typical broad‑market weights. Tech exposure is also elevated via the NASDAQ 100 position, which is heavily driven by large technology and tech‑adjacent firms. While this has helped during periods of strong tech and energy performance, it can amplify volatility during commodity downturns, policy shifts, or tech repricings. The rest of the portfolio is more evenly spread across financials, industrials, telecom, health care, staples, and others, which partially offsets but does not fully neutralize the big tilts.
Geographic exposure is overwhelmingly in North America at 99%, with only a small allocation to developed Europe and essentially no exposure to other regions. This makes the portfolio highly dependent on the US economic cycle, currency, regulation, and policy decisions. Many global benchmarks hold a substantial share in non‑US markets to reduce dependence on any single economy. The heavy US focus has been rewarding in the recent decade, as US equities outperformed many peers, so this alignment has worked well historically. However, it also means any prolonged US‑specific slump or dollar weakness would hit this portfolio harder than a more globally spread mix.
Market capitalization exposure is nicely spread across the size spectrum: roughly one‑third in mega‑caps, a quarter in large‑caps, and the remainder split across mid, small, and even micro‑caps. This resembles a “barbell” of dominant global leaders plus meaningful allocations to smaller, often more volatile firms. Smaller companies can offer higher growth potential but also greater risk, more sensitivity to economic cycles, and larger price swings. This allocation is well‑balanced and aligns closely with global standards in terms of including all size buckets, with an extra boost from small caps via the dedicated small cap value ETF. That tilt should be expected to add both return potential and bumpier rides.
Looking through ETF top holdings, the largest underlying exposures cluster in a handful of big US names like Exxon Mobil, NVIDIA, Apple, Chevron, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Broadcom. Several appear in more than one ETF, especially across the total market and NASDAQ 100 funds, creating hidden concentration in mega‑cap growth and energy. Because only top‑10 ETF positions are used, actual overlap is likely understated. Overlap matters because when the same company shows up multiple times, portfolio behavior becomes more tied to those names’ fortunes. Being aware of these concentrations helps decide whether the heavy reliance on a few global leaders and energy giants is intentional or worth dialing back.
Factor exposure is fairly close to market‑like on value, yield, and low volatility, while showing mild tilts away from size, momentum, and quality. Factor exposure describes how much the portfolio leans into characteristics like cheapness (value), trend (momentum), stability (low volatility), or company robustness (quality). The most notable feature here is the low score for size, which, in this framework, indicates less emphasis on smaller companies relative to the broader factor universe, despite a visible small cap allocation. Mildly low momentum and quality tilt means the portfolio leans a bit less on recent winners or the highest‑quality balance sheets. Overall, this is a relatively balanced factor profile without extreme tilts.
Risk contribution shows how much each holding adds to the portfolio’s total volatility, which can differ from its weight. Here, the total market ETF at 40% weight contributes about 35% of risk, slightly under its size, reflecting its broad diversification. The small cap value and energy funds each punch somewhat above their weights, with risk contributions around 21–23% versus 20% allocations, consistent with their more volatile nature. The NASDAQ 100’s risk share is almost exactly proportional to its weight. The top three positions drive about 80% of overall risk, which is typical for a concentrated four‑fund setup. Rebalancing or trimming the punchier satellites could meaningfully shift the risk profile if desired.
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, the current portfolio has an expected return of about 19.25% with 18.37% volatility, for a Sharpe ratio near 0.94. The Sharpe ratio compares return to risk, like grading how efficiently each unit of volatility is used. The optimal portfolio using the same building blocks reaches a higher Sharpe around 1.22, with both higher return and higher risk. There is also a minimum variance option with slightly lower risk and return than current. Because the current point sits below the efficient frontier, reshuffling, not changing, holdings could improve risk‑adjusted results. A same‑risk optimized mix even shows meaningfully higher projected returns at a similar or somewhat higher volatility level.
The overall dividend yield sits around 1.34%, blending a relatively higher yield from energy with lower yields from tech and small cap value. Dividends are the cash payments companies distribute from profits and can be an important return component for income‑focused investors. Here, the emphasis clearly leans toward capital growth rather than income generation. That aligns well with a growth‑oriented equity strategy, where reinvesting modest dividends and focusing on total return is often more effective than maximizing current cash flow. Income‑seeking investors would usually aim for materially higher yields and a different sector mix, so this yield level is more suitable for those prioritizing long‑term appreciation.
The weighted total expense ratio (TER) of about 0.11% is impressively low for such a targeted strategy. TER represents the annual fee charged by the funds, quietly deducted from returns. Keeping costs low is one of the few things investors can directly control, and small differences compound meaningfully over decades. This allocation is well‑balanced and aligns closely with global standards for cost efficiency, especially given the inclusion of a factor fund and a sector ETF, which often charge more. The low‑cost foundation supports better long‑term performance and leaves more of the portfolio’s return potential in the investor’s pocket rather than going to fund providers.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
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.
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey