Concentrated US growth portfolio with strong tech tilt and impressive historic outperformance versus broad markets
Report created on May 10, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 41.91% -
QQ Invesco QQQ Trust
QQQ - US46090E1038 20.48% -
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 15.01% -
GO Alphabet Inc Class A
GOOGL - US02079K3059 14.08% -
AA Apple Inc
AAPL - US0378331005 8.52%
This portfolio is compact and growth-heavy, with five holdings making up 100% of assets, all in stocks. Two broad US ETFs and one international ETF account for around three-quarters of the allocation, while two single-company positions in Alphabet and Apple make up the rest. This structure mixes diversified building blocks with meaningful stock-specific bets. A focused lineup like this is easy to follow and monitor because each holding has a clear role. At the same time, concentration means the portfolio’s results are heavily shaped by a few large positions, especially the growth-oriented US funds and the two mega-cap tech names. That mix helps explain both the strong past returns and the moderate diversification score.
Growth
Historically, the portfolio turned $1,000 into about $6,325 from 2016 to 2026, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20.34%. CAGR is like your “average speed” over the whole journey, smoothing out bumps along the way. This comfortably beat both the US market (15.40%) and the global market (12.79%), showing strong outperformance over this period. The worst drawdown, or peak-to-trough loss, was about -31.5% during early 2020, slightly milder than the benchmarks’ drawdowns. That suggests the mix of holdings handled that shock reasonably well. Still, returns were concentrated in just 46 key days that made up 90% of gains, underlining how missing a small number of strong days can matter a lot. Past performance, of course, does not guarantee future results.
Projection
The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which is basically a way of stress-testing many possible futures by repeatedly “replaying” history with random variations. Here, 1,000 simulations over 15 years show a median outcome of about $2,645 from an initial $1,000, with a likely middle range of roughly $1,816 to $4,111. The average annual return across all paths is about 7.96%, noticeably lower than the historical CAGR, which is common when models bake in periods of weaker markets too. There’s about a 74% chance of ending above $1,000. These ranges are not predictions but illustrations, and they rely on historical patterns that may not repeat, especially given the portfolio’s concentrated growth tilt.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of the portfolio is in stocks, with 0% in bonds, cash, or other asset classes. That 100% equity allocation is what drives the “growth” risk classification and the 5/7 risk score. Stocks historically offer higher long-run return potential than bonds, but they also tend to swing more, especially in market downturns. Having everything in one asset class means the portfolio benefits fully from equity bull markets but also feels equity bear markets with no built-in cushion from safer assets. Relative to many broad multi-asset benchmarks that mix stocks and bonds, this is a more return-focused and volatility-accepting profile. The overall risk and return behavior will be closely tied to global stock market cycles, particularly in the US.
Sectors
- Technology 36%
- Telecommunications 22%
- Financials 9%
- Consumer Discretionary 8%
- Industrials 6%
- Health Care 6%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Energy 3%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector-wise, the portfolio is tech-leaning, with technology around 36% and telecommunications (which here largely captures communication and internet platforms) at 22%. That means well over half of the portfolio is tied to growth-oriented, digitally driven businesses. The rest is spread across financials, consumer areas, industrials, health care, staples, energy, materials, utilities, and real estate, but each of these plays a smaller role. Compared with broad global benchmarks, this is a more growth and innovation-heavy mix, which has helped during the last decade of strong performance in these areas. The flip side is that such sectors can be more sensitive to shifts in interest rates, regulation, or changes in market sentiment toward high-growth companies.
Regions
- North America 86%
- Europe Developed 6%
- Japan 2%
- Asia Developed 2%
- Asia Emerging 2%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
Geographically, the portfolio is strongly US-centered, with about 86% in North America and the remainder scattered across developed Europe, Japan, other developed Asia, emerging Asia, Australasia, and Africa/Middle East. So, while there is global exposure via the international ETF, the US still dominates the overall profile. Over recent years, that US tilt has worked well as US markets beat many others. It also means company earnings, currency exposure, and policy risk are heavily linked to one region. Benchmarks like MSCI ACWI spread more across the globe, so this portfolio leans more toward the US than a strictly global market-weighted mix, reflecting a deliberate growth and mega-cap US exposure.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 60%
- Large-cap 26%
- Mid-cap 12%
- Small-cap 1%
By market capitalization, the portfolio is tilted toward the very largest companies: about 60% mega-cap and 26% large-cap, with only small slices in mid- and small-cap stocks. Market cap just means the total value of a company’s shares; mega-caps are the household-name giants that dominate major indices. This concentration in very large firms tends to reduce individual business risk compared with smaller, less established companies, but it can also mean performance closely tracks the fortunes of a handful of global leaders. Compared with more evenly spread size exposures, this structure leans toward stability of dominant franchises rather than the higher but bumpier return potential sometimes seen in smaller companies.
True holdings
-
Part of fund(s):
- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
Part of fund(s):
- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 4.90%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.16%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.57%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.80%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.74%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.58%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.48%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
BR Berkshire Hathaway Inc 0.66%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 46.80%
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, Alphabet and Apple stand out as overlapping positions, with total exposures of about 16.1% and 12.8% respectively when combining direct holdings and ETF slices. This creates hidden concentration: the same companies influence results both directly and indirectly. Other big names like NVIDIA, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta also show up via the ETFs, reinforcing the mega-cap growth theme. Coverage here only uses ETF top-10 holdings, so actual overlap is likely understated for some companies. This kind of overlap isn’t inherently a problem, but it does mean the portfolio’s performance is more closely tied to a relatively small set of global technology and internet leaders than the number of line items might suggest.
Factors
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.
The factor exposure data shows a notable tilt toward quality, with a score of 64%. Quality, in this context, captures traits like strong balance sheets, stable profitability, and resilient earnings — think of it as favoring financially robust companies. That tilt often helps in downturns relative to lower-quality peers, although it doesn’t eliminate market risk. Value and size are both in the “low” range, meaning the portfolio leans somewhat away from cheaper, smaller companies and toward larger, growthier names. Momentum, yield, and low volatility are all roughly neutral, so there’s no strong tilt there. Overall, this pattern fits a growthy, mega-cap portfolio that has historically benefited when investors favored high-quality industry leaders.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 41.91% 37.9% -
Invesco QQQ Trust
Weight: 20.48% 22.9% -
Alphabet Inc Class A
Weight: 14.08% 17.6% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 15.01% 11.3% -
Apple Inc
Weight: 8.52% 10.4%
Risk contribution shows how much each position drives the portfolio’s ups and downs, which can be very different from simple weights. Here, the top three holdings by weight — S&P 500 ETF, QQQ, and Alphabet — together account for about 78% of total risk. Alphabet and Apple each contribute more risk than their weight would suggest, with risk/weight ratios above 1, reflecting their higher volatility and concentration. The international ETF, by contrast, has a lower risk/weight ratio, meaning it adds diversification relative to the more growth-focused US positions. This pattern underlines that a few key exposures largely determine how the portfolio behaves, particularly during sharp market moves in US growth and tech names.
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.
The efficient frontier analysis suggests the current portfolio is on or very close to the efficient frontier, meaning that given these exact holdings, the current mix delivers a solid balance between risk and return. The portfolio’s Sharpe ratio — a measure of risk-adjusted return that compares excess return to volatility — is 0.8, while the maximum-Sharpe portfolio using the same ingredients scores 1.1 with higher risk and higher return. The minimum-variance mix sits at lower risk and lower return with a Sharpe of 0.69. Since the existing allocation lies near the frontier, it’s already making good use of its building blocks, indicating that the main tradeoff is not efficiency, but rather the chosen overall risk level and concentration in equities.
Dividends
- Apple Inc 0.40%
- Alphabet Inc Class A 0.20%
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.40%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.70%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.01%
The overall dividend yield for the portfolio is about 1.01%, which is relatively modest. Dividends are the cash payments companies make to shareholders, and they can form a steady component of total return alongside price changes. Here, the higher-yielding international ETF (around 2.7%) is balanced by lower-yielding growth names like Alphabet and Apple, as well as QQQ, which traditionally tracks more growth-oriented, lower-dividend companies. That mix fits with the portfolio’s growth profile: more emphasis on capital appreciation than income. For investors tracking cash flow, this means most of the return historically would have come from rising share prices rather than regular payouts.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%
Costs are a clear strength: the weighted average total expense ratio (TER) is about 0.06%, which is very low by industry standards. TER represents the annual fee charged by the ETFs, expressed as a percentage of assets — like a small yearly haircut on the portfolio value. Low ongoing costs matter because they compound over time; every dollar not spent on fees stays invested. The mix of ultra-low-cost broad Vanguard funds and a reasonably priced QQQ holding keeps the overall drag minimal. This cost profile is well-aligned with best practices for long-term investing and supports keeping more of the portfolio’s gross returns in the investor’s pocket over the years.
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