Get this analysis for your own portfolio Paste your holdings — the first report is free and takes about a minute. Analyze mine Roast mode 🔥

Factor-tilted stock junkie portfolio pretending to be balanced and almost getting away with it

Report created on May 3, 2026

Risk profile Info

4/7
Balanced
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

4/5
Broadly Diversified
Less diversification More diversification
Curious how your own portfolio scores? Same analysis, your holdings. First report free — no card needed. Analyze mine

Positions

This portfolio is 100% equities with four funds and somehow carries a “balanced” label with a straight face. Half of it is a plain S&P 500 tracker, the rest is a Frankenstein of value and momentum smart-beta funds stitched together. So on paper it looks diversified, but structurally it’s one big equity bet with some fancy factor seasoning. The mix leans heavily on rules-based strategies without any obvious narrative tying them together beyond “factors are cool.” It’s basically an all-stock portfolio cosplaying as something moderate, which means the risk label is doing more PR than analysis. The structure screams growth-chasing with a value guilt complex.

Growth Info

Historically, this thing has absolutely crushed it: turning €1,000 into €1,702 in less than three years and beating both the US and global markets by about 4 percentage points of CAGR. That’s excellent, but let’s not pretend it was free. A -20% max drawdown in a short period shows it can still punch you in the face when markets wobble. CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is the smooth average; the ride was anything but smooth. Also, this is a tiny time window in a factor-friendly environment — more sprint than marathon. Past data is yesterday’s weather: useful, but it doesn’t promise the next storm will behave the same way.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo simulation politely reminds that the future won’t care how pretty the backtest looked. Monte Carlo is basically running thousands of “what if” timelines using historical-style randomness to see where €1,000 might land. Median outcome around €2,795 in 15 years is nice, but the range from about €965 to €7,917 screams “anything could happen.” The fact that there’s a decent chance you end up roughly flat in real terms after 15 years should kill any illusion of guaranteed compounding magic. Simulations recycle past behavior, so if the factor party ends, these optimistic paths suddenly look like fan fiction.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset class “diversification” here is simple: there isn’t any. It’s 100% stocks, full stop. That’s like calling a diet “balanced” because it includes both fries and onion rings. There’s no buffer from bonds, cash-like assets, or anything that usually dampens the blow when equities have a tantrum. For a portfolio labeled balanced and a 4/7 risk score, the asset mix is quietly shouting 6/7. When everything in the portfolio lives in the same risk bucket, long losing streaks are not a bug, they’re a feature. It’s an equity rocket with no ballast pretending it’s a family car.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    30%
  • Financials
    17%
  • Industrials
    11%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    8%
  • Health Care
    8%
  • Telecommunications
    8%
  • Energy
    4%
  • Basic Materials
    4%
  • Consumer Staples
    4%
  • Utilities
    3%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Sector-wise, this portfolio is clearly in a committed relationship with tech at 30%, with financials and industrials picking up the crumbs. For something built around value and momentum factors, it still manages to end up heavily exposed to the usual tech darlings, which is kind of hilarious. The diversification across other sectors exists, but they’re more like extras in a movie dominated by chips, code, and platforms. Compared to a more boring, broad index mix, this has a louder growth-ish tilt hidden under value branding. When one sector is this dominant, sector risk stops being background noise and becomes part of the main storyline.

Regions Info

  • North America
    59%
  • Europe Developed
    21%
  • Asia Developed
    8%
  • Asia Emerging
    5%
  • Japan
    4%
  • Latin America
    2%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Europe Emerging
    1%

Geographically, this is “America first, everyone else gets the leftovers.” Nearly 60% is in North America, with Europe and the rest of the world making cameo appearances. Calling this “broadly diversified” is generous; it’s basically global markets, but with the US on steroids. International allocations exist, but they’re sized like side quests: nice to have, not central to the plot. That means portfolio fate is heavily tied to one economic and policy regime. If that region sneezes, this portfolio catches the flu. Sure, global indices also lean that way, but this setup seems very comfortable doubling down on it.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    44%
  • Large-cap
    40%
  • Mid-cap
    15%

Market cap exposure is a love letter to big, established companies: 44% mega-cap, 40% large-cap, with mid-caps tossed in as a token gesture. This is the classic “I want equity upside, but only from the most famous names” approach. It avoids the chaos of tiny stocks, but it also means returns are very tied to giants that already dominate headlines and indexes. In a way, it’s a closet crowd-follower: pretending to be cleverly factor-driven while quietly tracking the moves of global behemoths. When the biggest names wobble, this portfolio doesn’t get to hide in the small-cap corners — it goes down with the ship.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    3.78%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
  • Apple Inc
    3.32%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
  • Microsoft Corporation
    2.45%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
  • Amazon.com Inc
    1.81%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    1.55%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.49%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
  • Broadcom Inc
    1.31%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    1.20%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    1.12%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
  • Micron Technology Inc
    1.09%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
  • Top 10 total 19.11%

The look-through holdings are basically the “Magnificent Crowd” greatest hits album: Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and friends. Even though you didn’t buy them directly, they show up on repeat inside the ETFs. That’s overlap in action — the same names driving different funds, multiplying their influence. And this is only from top-10 holdings; the real duplication is likely higher. It means the portfolio may look diversified by fund count but—under the hood—it’s a fan club for a very specific group of mega-cap tech and growth names, with factor labels acting as a thin disguise.

Risk contribution Info

  • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    Weight: 50.00%
    52.0%
  • iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
    Weight: 20.00%
    18.3%
  • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
    Weight: 15.00%
    15.0%
  • iShares Edge MSCI Europe Momentum Factor UCITS ETF EUR (Acc)
    Weight: 15.00%
    14.7%

Risk contribution is refreshingly honest: the S&P 500 position is 50% of the weight and about 52% of the risk. No sneaky small holding secretly wrecking your volatility — the main driver is exactly where the biggest chunk sits. The top three funds account for over 85% of total risk, so the European momentum slice is more garnish than main character. Risk contribution shows which holdings actually swing the portfolio, and here it’s clear: the generic US market exposure is steering the car while the smart-beta funds fiddle with the radio. For a supposedly clever factor structure, the risk engine is pretty old-school.

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.

Open the Portfolio Builder Reshape your holdings and watch every metric recalculate live. Try it

The efficient frontier politely exposes the inefficiency: the current portfolio sits about 2.24 percentage points below what could be achieved with the exact same ingredients. The Sharpe ratio of 1.36 vs. an optimal 1.81 is a pretty big “you left returns on the table for this level of risk” message. The minimum variance version even offers slightly higher return at lower risk, just to twist the knife. The efficient frontier is basically showing the best combos of your existing funds, so this isn’t a product problem, it’s a weights problem. Right now the mix is like ordering a great menu and then combining courses badly.

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%
  • iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR 0.30%
  • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR 0.03%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.17%

Costs are the part that almost ruins the roast: a total TER of 0.17% is actually very reasonable. The S&P 500 slice is hilariously cheap, basically paying pocket change for broad US exposure. The smart-beta factor funds charge more, but not outrageously so for active-ish rules in ETF clothing. It’s like someone built a needlessly complex factor cocktail but at least remembered not to pay nightclub prices for it. The real issue isn’t what you’re being charged, it’s whether the complexity and overlaps earn their keep. Fees are under control — the rest of the design is what raises eyebrows.

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