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.
Structurally, this thing is “lazy genius with a side quest.” About 70% is one global fund doing all the heavy lifting, and the rest is a little shrine to small-cap value plus an all-equity fund that mostly copies what’s already there. It’s like ordering the combo meal, then adding extra fries and another smaller combo just in case. The core idea is actually solid: one simple global anchor and a tilt toward cheaper, smaller companies. The weird part is the duplication. Takeaway: either commit to “one-fund-and-chill” or be intentional about every extra satellite instead of sprinkling in near-clones.
Performance-wise, this portfolio has been flexing pretty hard: 21.5% CAGR versus ~21.2% for the US market and ~21.1% global. CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is basically your average speed over a wild road trip. You beat both benchmarks while taking a slightly smaller max drawdown than the US market and roughly in line with global. That’s a nice combo of “go fast, don’t crash as hard.” But be careful: this period is short and dominated by mega-cap tech fireworks. Past data is yesterday’s weather — useful, but not a prophecy. Takeaway: enjoy the win, but don’t assume 20%+ returns are your birthright.
The Monte Carlo projection is the adult version of rolling dice with your portfolio 1,000 times. It spits out a median $2,763 from $1,000 over 15 years — roughly 8.4% a year, which is much less glamorous than your recent 21.5%. Translation: the simulator is politely telling you the party won’t always be this wild. The possible range is huge: from “barely above water” at $1,033 (p5) to “I’m a genius” at $8,131 (p95). That spread is the cost of being 100% in stocks. Takeaway: the long-term odds are in your favor, but there will be years that feel like the dice hate you.
Asset classes: you chose violence. It’s 100% stocks, zero bonds, zero cash, no diversifiers at all. For a “balanced” risk classification, this is more “balanced on a skateboard going downhill.” The upside is simple: all your money is working, no passengers. The downside: when markets tank, so do you, with nothing to soften the hit. There’s no ballast, just sails. That’s fine if the time horizon is long and nerves are strong, but it’s a terrible setup for anyone who panics at a -20% statement. Takeaway: 100% equity is a personality trait, not a neutral choice — know which personality you’ve signed up for.
Sector-wise, this portfolio is diversified but with a clear tech crush: 21% in technology, then a chunky 18% financials and 14% industrials. It’s like saying “I eat a balanced diet” while your plate is mostly carbs with some protein and a side of vegetables. Not catastrophic, but when tech sneezes, this portfolio will catch a cold. You’re also light in the boring-but-useful corners like utilities and real estate, which are only 2% each. Those don’t make you rich fast, but they sometimes lose less when everything else is ugly. Takeaway: you’re tilted toward the exciting parts of the economy, which is fun until excitement turns into volatility.
Geographically, you’re predictably US-heavy: 65% in North America, then everyone else fighting for scraps. Europe gets 14%, Japan 7%, Asia developed and emerging together 9%, and the rest of the world is basically “rounding error.” For a global investor, this is “America plus a supporting cast.” To be fair, that’s not unusual — the US is a big slice of world markets — but you’ve clearly decided the other half of global market cap should just vibe in the background. Takeaway: this setup wins big if the US keeps dominating, but if leadership shifts elsewhere, you’re betting on the wrong horse farm.
Your market cap mix is actually one of the more interesting features: 33% mega-cap, 24% large, 19% mid, 15% small, 7% micro. So you’re not just hugging the giants; you’re sneaking into the sketchier neighborhood of small and micro caps, probably thanks to those Avantis funds. That can boost long-term returns, but it also means more drama — smaller companies bounce around more in both directions. You’re not all-in on tiny stuff, but you’ve turned the dial up enough to feel it. Takeaway: this is “broad market with a spicy side of small cap,” which is great if you don’t bail when the spice burns.
The look-through holdings basically scream, “I believe in the Magnificent Seven and their cousins,” just indirectly. NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla — all here, all via ETFs, none held directly. So you’re pretending to be diversified while still worshipping at the altar of Big Tech through broad funds. Overlap is understated because we only see top-10 holdings, so the real duplication is likely worse. This isn’t a crime, but it does mean more of your fate rides on the same handful of giants than you might think. Takeaway: when multiple funds own the same stars, your “diversification” is more costume than reality.
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, you’ve clearly been flirting with the “value” crowd: high value exposure at 63%, while everything else sits basically neutral. Factors are the hidden ingredients of performance — things like cheap vs expensive (value), big vs small (size), steady vs chaotic (low vol). You’ve tilted toward cheaper stocks without going nuts on other dimensions, which is almost… thoughtful. The roast: loading up on value after a long stretch of growth dominance can feel like showing up to the party just as the DJ packs up. But historically, value does come back in cycles. Takeaway: this factor bet will shine when “cheap and unloved” finally gets its redemption arc — just don’t expect it to be on your schedule.
Risk contribution reveals who’s actually rocking the boat, not just who looks big on paper. Your global Vanguard ETF is 71.5% of the weight and about 69% of the risk — so it’s doing exactly what you’d expect. The U.S. small cap value fund is only 13.8% by weight but contributes 17.1% of total risk, which means it’s the loud friend in the group chat. Top three holdings drive 93% of portfolio risk; everything else is basically background noise. Takeaway: if volatility ever feels spicier than expected, that small-cap value slice is the one kicking the door.
Your correlated-assets section basically says: the Avantis All Equity Markets ETF and the Vanguard Total World ETF move almost identically. Shocking. That’s like discovering your regular Coke and your “special house cola” taste the same. Holding both doesn’t meaningfully change how the portfolio behaves; it just adds complexity and extra ticker symbols to monitor. Correlation is just how often things move together — and these two are practically joined at the hip. Takeaway: if two funds march in lockstep, owning both is more about aesthetics than risk management. You’re not diversifying; you’re collecting logos.
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 chart is where the roast really lands: at your current risk level, you’re 4.34 percentage points below what you could get using the same ingredients but smarter sizing. Your Sharpe ratio is 1.08, while the optimal mix hits 1.61 — that’s a big gap in risk-adjusted returns. Sharpe is “return per unit of pain”; you’re choosing more pain for less gain than necessary. Even the minimum-variance mix beats you on Sharpe. Translation: the portfolio is basically leaving free efficiency in the parking lot. Takeaway: you don’t need new funds — just better weights to move closer to that frontier instead of camping below it.
Your yield is a very underwhelming 1.73%. That’s not an income portfolio; that’s loose change. The Avantis international small cap value fund does the most at 2.8%, but the overall setup is clearly growth-first, income-second (or maybe income-never). Nothing wrong with that, just don’t pretend this is built to pay the bills. Dividends are like snacks during a long trip — nice to have, but here you’re mostly depending on price appreciation to get you where you want to go. Takeaway: this structure fits someone reinvesting everything, not someone expecting their portfolio to cover rent.
Costs are actually one of the most competent parts of this whole setup: total TER around 0.13%. That’s impressively low, especially given you sprinkled in some factor-tilted funds that usually charge more. You basically managed to dine at a fancy-ish restaurant while still sneaking in off the value menu. The only mild jab: you’re paying extra for near-duplicate exposures (like the all-equity fund overlapping with the global core), which is like tipping a second waiter to bring the same dish. Takeaway: fee discipline is good — just make sure every paid product actually earns its place.
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