Highly concentrated tech focused growth portfolio with strong past returns and meaningful downside swings
Report created on May 8, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
QQ Invesco QQQ Trust
QQQ - US46090E1038 86.00% -
QB D-Wave Quantum Inc.
QBTS - US26740W1099 14.00%
This portfolio is extremely concentrated, with 86% in a single tech-heavy ETF and the remaining 14% in one individual stock, D-Wave Quantum. That means just two positions drive all of the portfolio’s behavior. A structure like this is easy to follow and understand, but it leaves little room for other types of companies or regions to offset shocks. The reported diversification score of 2/5 lines up with this picture of low variety. In practice, this kind of concentration usually means the portfolio will move quickly in both directions, tightly linked to the fortunes of growth-oriented technology and related themes rather than the broader market.
Growth
Over the period from late 2020 to May 2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $2,268, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 16.49%. CAGR is like your average speed on a road trip, smoothing out bumps along the way. That’s ahead of both the US market (15.06%) and global market (12.39%) over the same window. The trade-off was a much deeper max drawdown of about -40%, compared with roughly -25% in the benchmarks. Max drawdown measures the worst peak‑to‑trough fall; here it took about 14 months to bottom and another 14 to recover, showing that big declines required real patience.
Projection
The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which basically means the computer reruns many possible future paths using patterns from past returns and volatility. Starting from $1,000 for 15 years, the median outcome lands around $2,919, with a wide “middle” band from about $1,871 to $4,447. The broad possible range, from roughly breaking even to over $8,000, reflects how uncertain long-term results can be for a growth-tilted, concentrated portfolio. The average simulated annual return of 8.44% is lower than recent history, which is a common feature when models account for volatility. As always, these are illustrations, not promises, and real markets can behave very differently from the past.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of the portfolio is in stocks, with no allocation to bonds, cash-like instruments, or alternatives. That single-asset-class exposure lines up with the “Growth” risk label and helps explain the relatively high risk score of 5/7. Stocks historically have offered higher long‑run returns than bonds, but with larger and more frequent swings along the way. Because there is no built‑in buffer from steadier asset classes, portfolio ups and downs depend entirely on equity markets. This is very different from a blended mix that includes fixed income, where bond holdings can sometimes soften equity drawdowns or provide income when stock prices are under pressure.
Sectors
- Technology 61%
- Telecommunications 13%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Consumer Staples 6%
- Health Care 3%
- Industrials 2%
- Utilities 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Energy 1%
Sector-wise, the portfolio is dominated by technology at 61%, far above broad market indices where tech is significant but not this overwhelming. Telecommunications adds 13%, and consumer discretionary another 10%, so most exposure clusters around growth-oriented, innovation-driven areas. Smaller slices in staples, health care, industrials, and others spread the rest. Such a tech-heavy structure typically benefits strongly when innovation and growth names are in favor, but it can be more sensitive when interest rates rise or when markets rotate toward more defensive or value-oriented companies. The sector mix here matches its performance story: powerful in growth phases, but more exposed during tech-led selloffs.
Regions
- North America 98%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geographically, the portfolio is almost entirely tied to North America at 98%, with only 1% showing up in developed Europe. That’s much more home-biased than global equity benchmarks, where the US is large but not this dominant and other regions play bigger roles. A strong US focus can work well when North American markets and the dollar outperform, as they have over several recent years. At the same time, it means company earnings, regulation, and currency exposure are heavily linked to one region. Events specific to the US market or economy are therefore likely to have an outsized effect compared with a more globally diversified portfolio.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 47%
- Large-cap 30%
- Mid-cap 23%
The portfolio’s market cap breakdown leans toward the biggest companies, with 47% in mega‑caps and 30% in large‑caps, while mid‑caps make up the remaining 23%. Mega‑cap and large‑cap firms tend to be more established and often more liquid, which can help with trading and sometimes slightly dampen volatility compared with very small companies. However, the presence of D-Wave — a smaller, more speculative name not visible in this breakdown — introduces a different risk profile alongside the mega‑cap giants inside QQQ. Overall, this mix combines relatively stable, dominant firms with a meaningful kicker from a higher‑risk individual stock, creating a blended risk pattern.
True holdings
-
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 7.24%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
AA Apple Inc 6.10%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 4.61%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 4.39%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 3.35%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 3.10%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.97%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
-
TS Tesla Inc 2.94%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 2.70%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco QQQ Trust
- Top 10 total 51.42%
The look-through view shows that most underlying exposure comes from a familiar group of large US tech-related companies: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Broadcom, Tesla, and Meta. These appear via the QQQ ETF and together create a cluster of similar growth drivers. D-Wave stands alone as a direct 14% position with no overlap. This overlap in big tech names means that, although there are many individual holdings inside the ETF, their behavior will often move together. The coverage only reflects ETF top‑10 holdings, so real overlap may be even higher, but the existing data already points to concentrated exposure in a small group of influential firms.
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.
Factor exposure highlights a very low tilt to value at 19%, meaning the portfolio is strongly tilted away from cheaper, out-of-favor companies and more toward higher-priced growth names. Factor exposure is like checking which “traits” your holdings share, such as being cheap, stable, or fast‑rising. Here, size, momentum, and quality all look neutral, suggesting they roughly resemble the broader market’s profile. Yield and low volatility both show low scores, reinforcing that the portfolio doesn’t focus on income or smooth price paths. In practice, this mix often does well when growth stocks are rewarded but can lag when markets rotate toward value, higher-yielding, or low-volatility styles.
Risk contribution
-
Invesco QQQ Trust
Weight: 86.00% 53.4% -
D-Wave Quantum Inc.
Weight: 14.00% 46.6%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding adds to the portfolio’s total ups and downs, which can differ a lot from its simple weight. QQQ is 86% of the portfolio but contributes about 53% of the risk, so it’s actually “calmer” than its size might suggest. D-Wave is the opposite: at just 14% weight it drives about 47% of overall risk, with a risk/weight ratio above 3. That’s like having one small but very loud instrument dominating the orchestra. This highlights that a relatively modest allocation to a volatile stock can still heavily influence daily swings and overall portfolio risk.
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 risk vs. return chart shows the current portfolio has a Sharpe ratio of 0.82, close to the optimal portfolio’s 0.92 and above the minimum variance portfolio’s 0.77. The Sharpe ratio compares excess return to volatility, like measuring how much “reward” you get per unit of risk. Because the current point sits on or very near the efficient frontier, the existing mix of QQQ and D-Wave is already considered efficient given these two holdings. In other words, within this specific asset set, the historical data says you’re getting a reasonable trade-off between risk and return, even though overall risk remains relatively high compared with more diversified combinations.
Dividends
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.40%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.34%
Dividends play a very small role here. QQQ’s yield is around 0.40%, and the total portfolio yield comes out to roughly 0.34%, which is well below broader equity income strategies or bond yields in many periods. Dividend yield is simply the cash payout as a percentage of price, and it can matter more for investors who want steady income. In this portfolio, returns are expected to come mainly from price changes in growth-oriented stocks rather than from regular cash distributions. That’s consistent with the heavy tech and growth tilt, where companies often reinvest profits instead of paying out large dividends.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.17%
On the cost side, the total expense ratio (TER) for the portfolio is about 0.17%, driven largely by QQQ’s 0.20% fee and the fact that the individual stock position doesn’t have an ongoing fund cost. A TER is the annual fee charged by funds as a percentage of assets, quietly deducted in the background. This level is relatively low compared with many actively managed funds and helps more of the underlying returns flow through to the investor. Over long periods, small fee differences can compound into meaningful dollar amounts, so keeping costs modest is a real structural strength of this portfolio.
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