This portfolio is an all‑equity mix built entirely from ETFs, with eight positions and no bonds or cash. The largest slice is a US large‑cap momentum fund at 25%, followed by a quality‑screened US large‑cap fund at 20%. Mid‑caps, dedicated US technology, and small‑cap value funds round out the domestic exposure, while two Avantis funds provide international large and small‑cap value exposure totaling 20%. This structure leans clearly toward growth and capital appreciation rather than income or capital preservation. A concentrated set of factor and style ETFs means the portfolio behaves more like a cohesive strategy than a collection of unrelated funds, which helps clarity but also amplifies equity‑market risk.
One or more local-currency benchmark funds are unavailable for this report.
From late 2021 to May 2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $2,134, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.77%. CAGR is like average speed on a road trip, showing the smoothed yearly growth including ups and downs. Over the same period, the global market benchmark returned 12.27% a year, so this mix has outpaced broad equities by 5.5 percentage points annually. The worst peak‑to‑trough drop, or max drawdown, was -24.7%, slightly milder than the global market’s -26.4%. That drawdown lasted about nine months down and fourteen months to fully recover, illustrating that strong long‑term returns still came with a meaningful but manageable rough patch.
The Monte Carlo projection uses 1,000 simulated futures based on past volatility and return patterns to estimate a range of outcomes. Think of it as running the same 15‑year experiment many times with slightly different market paths. Starting from $1,000, the median result lands around $2,647 after 15 years, or an annualized 7.88% across all simulations. The “likely” band (middle 50% of outcomes) runs from about $1,726 to $4,103, while 90% of paths fall between roughly $1,015 and $7,270. This shows a wide spread: equities historically reward patience but can finish close to flat in tougher scenarios. As always, these are statistical forecasts, not promises.
All of the portfolio is invested in stocks, with 0% in bonds, real assets, or cash. That makes the asset‑class profile very straightforward: it fully participates in equity market upside, but also fully absorbs equity‑style drawdowns. Many broad benchmarks mix in some bonds or defensive assets, which typically dampen volatility; by comparison, this all‑stock mix naturally sits on the higher‑risk side. The upside of a single asset class is simplicity and clear exposure to global corporate growth. The trade‑off is that there’s no built‑in buffer from less volatile asset classes during periods when stocks everywhere stumble at once.
Sector‑wise, technology stands out at 38% of the portfolio, clearly above its share in many broad global indices. Industrials at 17% and financials at 11% are the next largest groups, with the rest spread across consumer, health care, energy, materials, telecom, utilities, and real estate in smaller slices. A tech tilt helps explain both strong recent performance and sensitivity to innovation cycles and interest‑rate expectations. When growth and tech‑related earnings are in favor, a profile like this can pull ahead of diversified markets, but it can also see sharper moves during periods when investors rotate away from growth‑oriented businesses into more defensive or cyclical areas.
Geographically, the portfolio is heavily anchored in North America at 82%, with the remainder spread across developed Europe (10%), Japan (5%), and smaller allocations to Australasia, Asia developed, and Africa/Middle East. Many global equity benchmarks currently show a strong but somewhat lower US share, so this is a clear US tilt. That alignment with the world’s largest equity market has been beneficial over the last decade as US stocks have led. At the same time, it means results are closely tied to one region’s economy, currency, and policy environment, while only a modest slice is exposed to other developed markets’ different growth and valuation cycles.
By market capitalization, the holdings cover the full spectrum: about 24% in mega‑caps, 33% in large‑caps, 22% in mid‑caps, 15% in small‑caps, and 6% in micro‑caps. This is broader across size segments than many cap‑weighted benchmarks, which lean more heavily to mega and large companies. Smaller and mid‑cap firms often have more room to grow but also tend to be more volatile and sensitive to economic shifts. The spread across sizes means the portfolio can capture leadership when smaller companies outperform, while the substantial mega and large‑cap core provides exposure to established businesses that often dominate index performance and global headlines.
The look‑through view of top holdings shows meaningful exposure to several large technology names via multiple ETFs. NVIDIA at 4.83% is the largest single underlying position, followed by Apple at 3.23%, Micron at 3.06%, and Broadcom at 2.42%, with other semiconductor and big‑tech names like AMD, Microsoft, Alphabet, Cisco, and Intel also present. Because only ETF top‑10 holdings are included, actual overlap is likely somewhat higher than shown. This concentration in a handful of influential technology companies means their share price moves can disproportionately sway portfolio results, especially during periods when the broader market behaves differently from these mega‑cap tech leaders.
Factor exposure across value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility is broadly neutral, sitting near the 50% “market‑like” mark on each dimension. Factor exposure is a way of measuring how much a portfolio leans into traits that academic research links to returns, like cheapness (value) or recent winners (momentum). Here, no factor shows a strong tilt; instead, the mix behaves similarly to a broad market factor profile, even though it’s built from specialized ETFs. That balance can be helpful because it avoids heavily relying on any single style working well; performance is more likely to track the general equity cycle than a particular factor regime.
Risk contribution looks at how much each holding drives overall ups and downs, which can differ from its simple weight. The largest US momentum ETF at 25% weight contributes about 25.4% of portfolio risk, roughly proportional. The dedicated tech ETF is 15% of the assets but 19.5% of the risk, showing its higher volatility and sensitivity. The US quality ETF, by contrast, contributes slightly less risk than its 20% weight, reflecting its more stable profile. Overall, the top three positions account for about 62.7% of total risk, so day‑to‑day and year‑to‑year swings are primarily shaped by this core trio rather than the smaller satellite funds.
The correlation data highlights a particularly tight relationship between the two Avantis international funds, with the small‑cap value and large‑cap exposures moving very similarly. Correlation measures how often assets move in the same direction; highly correlated pairs tend to rise and fall together, which limits diversification between them. That does not make either fund “bad,” it just means that, within this portfolio, international diversification is mainly a single cluster rather than two independent return streams. The broader mix still benefits from diversification between international and US holdings, but within the international sleeve, the behavior is quite unified across company sizes.
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 annualized return of 18.11% with volatility of 17.99%, giving a Sharpe ratio of 0.78 using a 4% risk‑free rate. The efficient frontier shows combinations of the existing holdings that deliver the best expected return for each risk level. Here, the optimal Sharpe portfolio scores 1.12, and the minimum‑variance mix scores 0.87, both above the current Sharpe. The current allocation sits about 3 percentage points below the frontier at its risk level, meaning a different weighting of the same ETFs—without adding new ones—could, in theory, improve the balance between return and volatility based on historical data.
The portfolio’s overall dividend yield is about 1.18%, driven mainly by the international value funds with yields around 2.7–2.8% and the US small‑cap value fund at 1.3%. The tech and momentum‑tilted ETFs yield less, some around 0.3–0.7%, pulling the average down. Dividend yield is simply the annual cash payout divided by price, and it can be an important part of total return, especially over longer horizons. In this portfolio, income plays a supporting rather than central role; most of the historical growth has come from price appreciation and factor exposure rather than from high regular cash distributions.
The weighted average ongoing cost (TER) of the portfolio is about 0.19% per year, which is low for a mix of specialized factor and international funds. TER, or Total Expense Ratio, is the annual fee the fund charges to cover management and operating costs, deducted automatically from returns. Individual funds range from 0.08% for the broad tech ETF up to 0.36% for the international small‑cap value ETF, with most clustered around the mid‑teens to mid‑twenties basis points. These impressively low costs mean less performance is lost to fees each year, allowing more of any market‑driven return to compound over time.
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