This portfolio has only about 1 months of historical data, based on the youngest asset in the portfolio. Some metrics, projections, and AI insights may be less reliable and should be interpreted with caution.

Highly concentrated technology focused stock portfolio with extreme recent gains and elevated risk exposure

Report created on May 10, 2026

Risk profile Info

6/7
Aggressive
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

2/5
Low Diversity
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio is tightly focused, with three individual stocks and one thematic ETF making up most of the total weight. Marvell and IONQ together already account for more than 40%, and the top three holdings drive the bulk of overall risk. A handful of broad US index and Nasdaq-linked ETFs sit around them in smaller sizes, acting more like supporting players than the core. This kind of concentrated structure can create powerful moves in either direction. It also means the portfolio’s behaviour is dominated by a few specific companies rather than the wider market. With only about a month of history, any apparent pattern in how this mix behaves should be treated as very tentative.

Growth Info

Over the short one‑month window, the portfolio’s $1,000 hypothetical investment jumped to about $1,450, far ahead of both US and global market benchmarks. The calculated compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of over 3,500% reflects this brief surge, not a realistic long‑term pace. Max drawdown, the worst peak‑to‑trough drop, was relatively mild at around –4.3%, and most returns came in a handful of days. This cluster of gains suggests exposure to a sharp, recent rally rather than a stable track record. With such limited data, these statistics mostly show how the portfolio reacted to one short market phase, not how it’s likely to behave over many years.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection uses historical ups and downs to simulate thousands of possible 15‑year paths, then summarizes potential ending values. Here, the median outcome shows $1,000 growing to roughly $2,658, with a wide plausible range from about $1,036 to $6,849. This method assumes that the recent pattern of returns is a reasonable guide to future volatility and average growth. Because the history behind this portfolio is only about a month, that assumption is especially shaky. The simulated numbers are better read as a rough “what‑if” illustration of risk and uncertainty, not as a forecast. They highlight how a volatile, growth‑tilted portfolio can produce very different long‑term results across scenarios.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    88%
  • No data
    12%

Based on the available data, about 88% of the portfolio sits in stocks, with the rest classified as “no data.” That equity‑heavy mix—combined with the aggressive risk score—lines up with a growth‑oriented approach that prioritizes potential upside over stability. Stocks are typically the main driver of long‑term returns, but they also tend to swing more than bonds or cash, especially when concentrated in specific themes. The smaller allocations to broad index ETFs still sit within the equity bucket, so they don’t change the overall stock dominance. With only a month of observation, it’s not yet possible to see how this stock‑heavy profile behaves across different market cycles, just in a recent positive stretch.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    72%
  • Telecommunications
    3%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    3%
  • Health Care
    2%
  • Financials
    2%
  • Industrials
    2%
  • Consumer Staples
    2%
  • Energy
    1%
  • Utilities
    1%

Sector exposure is heavily tilted toward technology, which makes up roughly 72% of the portfolio, with all other sectors in low single digits. This creates a strong thematic bet on tech‑related trends, particularly in areas like chips and advanced computing. While such focus can amplify gains when the theme is in favour, it also raises the risk of larger drawdowns if sentiment turns or if regulation, competition, or earnings disappointments hit that space. The small allocations to sectors like health care, financials, and consumer areas are unlikely to materially soften technology‑specific shocks. Over a single month of data, that tech tilt has coincided with very strong performance, but history this short can’t show how it might behave in a downturn.

Regions Info

  • North America
    88%

Geographically, roughly 88% of the portfolio is tied to North America, with the rest not broken out in the data. That means most of the economic, political, and currency exposure is linked to a single region. Compared with common global benchmarks, which spread more weight across multiple areas, this is a notable regional concentration. When North American markets and the US dollar are strong, such a tilt can look very favourable. However, it also means portfolio outcomes lean heavily on one economy’s policy choices, growth trends, and corporate landscape. With just a month of returns, the data mainly shows how this regional exposure fared in a recent, specific window, not across a variety of global conditions.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    52%
  • Mega-cap
    31%
  • Mid-cap
    4%
  • Small-cap
    1%

The portfolio skews strongly toward large and mega‑cap companies, which together make up more than 80% of the market‑cap breakdown, with only modest exposure to mid and small caps. Large and mega‑caps tend to be more established businesses, often with deeper liquidity and broader analyst coverage. At the same time, individual names like IONQ show that even within a large‑cap‑heavy mix, specific holdings can be highly volatile or early‑stage in their business paths. Compared with a classic broad index, this blend keeps the size profile relatively mainstream while stock selection and thematic focus introduce extra risk. The one‑month performance doesn’t yet reveal how these size exposures behave over a full cycle.

True holdings Info

  • Marvell Technology Group Ltd
    29.69%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    19.70%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Direct holding 17.66%
  • IONQ Inc
    13.60%
  • SK Hynix Inc
    3.07%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Roundhill Memory ETF
  • Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
    2.56%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Roundhill Memory ETF
  • Apple Inc
    1.79%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • First American Funds Inc. - Government Obligations Fund
    1.56%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Roundhill Memory ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    1.33%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Amazon.com Inc
    1.10%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    0.89%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Top 10 total 75.29%

Looking through the ETFs, a few big names—NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet—appear as underlying exposures, but direct stock positions dominate. NVIDIA stands out with about 19.7% total weight once ETF overlap is included, even though its direct allocation is already sizable. This “double counting” via both stock and ETFs increases hidden concentration in that company. Coverage is incomplete because only ETF top‑10 holdings are shown, so overlap elsewhere may be understated. The result is a portfolio where a small set of companies—especially Marvell, IONQ, and NVIDIA—drive a substantial share of the economic exposure. Over a single month of returns, that concentration has been a tailwind, but it also sets up sensitivity to news around these particular firms.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Low
Data availability: 65%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 88%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
High
Data availability: 4%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
High
Data availability: 61%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 75%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Low
Data availability: 81%

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 shows a very low tilt to Size and high tilts to Momentum and Quality, with other factors nearer to neutral. Factors are like underlying “personality traits” of investments—momentum captures recent winners, quality looks at stronger balance sheets or profitability, and size reflects company scale. A high momentum tilt can boost returns when trends persist, but it may hurt during sharp reversals as previous winners get sold off. Very low size exposure means the portfolio leans away from smaller companies, reinforcing its large‑ and mega‑cap focus. Combined with a high quality tilt, this suggests a concentration in well‑established, recently strong performers. With only a month of data, these factor readings offer a snapshot of style rather than a stable, proven pattern.

Risk contribution Info

  • Marvell Technology Group Ltd
    Weight: 29.69%
    34.9%
  • IONQ Inc
    Weight: 13.60%
    34.1%
  • Roundhill Memory ETF
    Weight: 11.82%
    16.5%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    Weight: 17.66%
    6.9%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Weight: 8.22%
    2.3%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 94.7%

Risk contribution numbers highlight how much each position adds to overall volatility, not just how big it is. IONQ, at about 13.6% weight, contributes roughly 34% of total risk, giving it a very high risk‑to‑weight ratio. Marvell also punches above its size, with nearly 30% weight and around 35% of risk. Together with the Memory ETF, the top three positions generate over 85% of the portfolio’s overall ups and downs. In contrast, broad index ETFs like the Vanguard funds carry much more modest risk shares relative to weight. This pattern shows that a few growth‑heavy positions effectively steer the portfolio’s day‑to‑day behaviour. Over a short one‑month span, that has meant amplified upside, but the same mechanics would apply in a negative stretch.

Redundant positions Info

  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    High correlation
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    High correlation

The correlation data points out pairs of holdings that have moved almost identically over the short period observed. NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF and the Invesco Nasdaq 100 ETF are one such pair, and the two Vanguard broad US equity ETFs form another. Correlation, in simple terms, measures how often assets move in the same direction—high correlation means diversification benefits are limited between those positions. With only about a month of history, these relationships could shift as markets change, but the product designs suggest they’ll likely stay closely linked. So while holding several funds may feel diversified, within these pairs the underlying exposures are very similar, and they’re likely to respond in tandem during market swings.

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 compares the current mix to alternative weightings using the same holdings. The current portfolio sits below the efficient frontier at its risk level, with a high volatility figure and a Sharpe ratio lower than the optimal and minimum‑variance combinations. The Sharpe ratio, which measures return per unit of risk, looks extremely high here mainly because it’s based on this unusually strong one‑month period. Even so, the math suggests that different weightings of these same assets could have delivered better risk‑adjusted results over the sample. Given the very short history, this is less a firm conclusion and more a gentle signal that risk is currently concentrated and not fully balanced across the available holdings.

Dividends Info

  • Marvell Technology Group Ltd 0.10%
  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 13.40%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.00%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.13%

The portfolio’s overall dividend yield of around 1.13% is modest, with most income coming from the NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF, which shows a very high yield on its own. Dividends are the cash payouts that some stocks and funds distribute, and over long periods they can be a meaningful part of total return. Here, the emphasis seems firmly on price growth rather than steady income, especially given the strong tech and growth tilt. With just a month of data, the yield numbers are mostly structural snapshots, not a history of actual payments received. Future payouts can change as funds adjust distributions or underlying holdings, so the income stream shouldn’t be assumed to be fixed.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 0.68%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%

The weighted total expense ratio (TER) for the ETFs in this portfolio is about 0.06%, which is very low by industry standards. TER represents the annual percentage fee taken by funds to cover management and operating costs, and even small differences compound over long periods. Most of the cost impact comes from the higher‑fee NEOS fund, while the core Vanguard ETFs sit at very low expense levels. This cost structure is a clear positive: it keeps more of any future returns in the portfolio rather than going to fees. With only a month of performance history, fees haven’t had time to bite yet, but over many years low costs typically provide a helpful tailwind.

What next?

Ready to invest in this portfolio?

Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.

Select broker

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