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

Value tourist portfolio that talks like a bargain hunter but parties with mega cap tech anyway

Report created on May 6, 2026

Risk profile Info

4/7
Balanced
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

4/5
Broadly Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio is four ETFs in a trench coat pretending to be complex. Half is a plain global index fund, the rest is stacked into value-factor side bets sliced by region like someone really wanted to “express a view” but stopped halfway. It’s basically: one sensible core, then three satellites all shouting “value” in slightly different accents. Structurally it’s clean, but also a bit redundant: global market plus three overlapping value-flavoured funds. That’s like ordering three versions of the same dish and calling it a tasting menu. The big picture: simple on paper, but the factor layering makes it behave less “balanced” than the risk label suggests.

Growth Info

Historically, this thing pulled a 13.01% CAGR, turning €1,000 into €2,443. Respectable… right until you notice the US market did 15.67% in the same period and left it behind by 2.66% a year. Against the global market it basically tied, but with a rounding-error underperformance. Max drawdown at -34.11% was almost identical to the benchmarks, so the pain level was the same while the payoff was slightly worse. That’s the classic value-tilt story: you signed up for “smart” but mostly got “slower.” And remember, this is all backward-looking — helpful context, not a prophecy.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection says the future is somewhere between “fine” and “shrug.” A €1,000 stake ends up with a median of €2,827 after 15 years, with a wide but normal-looking range from about €1,012 to €8,220. Monte Carlo is basically a thousand alternate timelines: randomised returns using past-like volatility to see what could happen. Here, the odds of a positive outcome are about 76%, so three out of four timelines don’t end in tears, but nothing screams jackpot either. As usual, these simulations are yesterday’s weather in fancy clothes — useful for scale, not guarantees.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset class “diversification” here is easy to summarise: stocks, stocks, and more stocks. You’ve gone 100% equity like fixed income never existed, which is fine if you’re honest about it, but hilarious for something sitting in a “balanced” risk bucket. There’s zero ballast: no bonds, no real alternatives, nothing that typically dampens equity mood swings. It’s like calling a pure whiskey diet “balanced hydration.” The implication is simple: when markets cheer, this rides along nicely; when they sulk, everything sulks together, and there’s nowhere in this portfolio that’s contractually obliged to stay calm.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    28%
  • Financials
    17%
  • Industrials
    11%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    9%
  • Health Care
    9%
  • Telecommunications
    7%
  • Energy
    5%
  • Consumer Staples
    5%
  • Basic Materials
    5%
  • Utilities
    3%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Sector-wise, the value branding didn’t stop this turning into a tech-heavy creature: 28% in technology is more “growth junkie” than “deep value purist.” Financials at 17% and industrials at 11% try to bring some old-school respectability, but the top line reads like a closet tech fan cosplaying as a value investor. This isn’t a disaster, but it’s not exactly coherent with the story the fund names are telling. When one sector dominates, the portfolio’s mood gets tied to that sector’s cycle, so the “bargain hunter” ends up living and dying by the same headlines as a plain vanilla growth portfolio.

Regions Info

  • North America
    48%
  • Europe Developed
    26%
  • Japan
    8%
  • Asia Developed
    8%
  • Asia Emerging
    6%
  • Latin America
    2%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Australasia
    1%

Geographically it’s “global-ish” but still very US-flavoured: 48% North America with another 26% in Developed Europe. That’s the standard big-index bias rather than anything original, but it does mean nearly three-quarters of the portfolio dances to developed-world politics and central banks. Japan and other developed Asia show up just enough to get on the invite list, and emerging markets are a side dish, not the main course. It’s a sensible spread with a boring passport, but don’t let the “world” label fool you into thinking this is truly evenly global — it’s still mostly the usual suspects in fancy packaging.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    43%
  • Mega-cap
    40%
  • Mid-cap
    15%

On market cap, this portfolio says it loves value but clearly trusts size. About 83% is in mega and large caps, with only 15% mid-cap and essentially no real small-cap adventure. That’s the corporate equivalent of only dating people with LinkedIn Premium. Big companies are more stable and news-driven, but they also tend to move together, so the diversification you think you’re getting from lots of names is partly an illusion. The value tilt lives mostly in the big leagues here, which is cute — like bargain shopping, but only in the most expensive mall.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    2.36%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Apple Inc
    2.07%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    1.78%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
    • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
  • Micron Technology Inc
    1.63%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
  • Microsoft Corporation
    1.45%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    1.11%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Cisco Systems Inc
    1.05%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    0.92%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Intel Corporation
    0.83%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    0.79%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
  • Top 10 total 14.00%

The look-through holdings are a fun reality check: top exposures are all the standard mega-cap tech and semiconductor royalty — NVIDIA, Apple, TSMC, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, the usual fan club. For a “value factor” ensemble, the actual ingredients look suspiciously like a growth investor’s greatest hits playlist. Because the data only covers ETF top-10s, overlap is almost certainly understated, meaning some of these names are probably lurking in multiple funds. So the portfolio is less diversified under the hood than it pretends, with a handful of giants quietly steering the ship from several different wrappers.

Risk contribution Info

  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF
    Weight: 50.00%
    49.3%
  • iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR
    Weight: 30.00%
    30.5%
  • iShares Edge MSCI Europe Value Factor UCITS ETF EUR (Acc)
    Weight: 10.00%
    10.5%
  • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD
    Weight: 10.00%
    9.8%

Risk contribution is refreshingly boring: each fund pulls roughly its weight in volatility. The 50% ACWI core contributes about 49% of risk, the 30% world value fund kicks in around 30%, and the 10% slices hover around 10%. No tiny drama queen position secretly driving half the turbulence. Still, 90% of total risk comes from just the top three positions, which is what happens when you run a tight four-ETF show. That concentration is structurally fine, but it does mean the portfolio’s personality is basically “whatever these big broad funds decide to do,” with very little nuance around the edges.

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.

On the efficient frontier chart, this portfolio actually behaves like it knows what it’s doing. The current allocation sits on or very near the frontier, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.6 versus 0.81 at the optimal mix and 0.8 at minimum variance. The efficient frontier is basically the “least dumb way” to combine your existing holdings for a given risk level. Being this close means the weights aren’t randomly chaotic — the trade-off between risk (16.01%) and return (13.68%) is reasonably tuned. Mild roast here: performance is efficient, even if the branding (balanced, value, global) is a bit overdramatic.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) USD 0.40%
  • iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF USD (Acc) EUR 0.30%
  • SSgA SPDR ETFs Europe I Public Limited Company - SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF 0.45%
  • iShares Edge MSCI Europe Value Factor UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) 0.25%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.38%

Costs land at a total TER of 0.38%, which is not scandalous but not brag-worthy either. The global ACWI fund at 0.45% is especially doing its best “I swear I’m worth it” impression while cheaper options exist in the wild. The value factor funds sit in the 0.25–0.40% range, which is textbook “factor tax.” You’re paying extra mainly for marketing and factor tilts that, so far, haven’t crushed the plain benchmarks. Think of it as flying premium economy: nicer than the back row, but noticeably more expensive than the basic seat that goes to the exact same destination.

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