This portfolio has only about 1.7 years 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.
Open the Portfolio Builder Reshape your holdings and watch every metric recalculate live. Try it

Global equity portfolio with strong tech tilt and efficient risk profile based on short recent history

Report created on Jul 2, 2026

Risk profile Info

4/7
Balanced
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

3/5
Moderately Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio is a simple three‑ETF equity mix, with about 80% in a broad global index, 10% in a large‑cap growth basket, and 10% in global small‑cap value shares. Structurally, that means most of the risk and return is driven by a diversified global core, while smaller “satellite” positions lean toward growth and small value. This kind of core‑satellite shape is common because it keeps complexity low. The flip side is that everything here is stocks, so there’s no built‑in cushion from bonds or cash. Given the very short 1.7‑year history, any apparent pattern in how this mix behaves should be seen as early and not yet a long‑term track record.

Growth Info

Over the available 1.7‑year window, €1,000 grew to about €1,328, implying a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) near 17.7%. CAGR is like your “average speed” over the full trip, smoothing out bumps along the way. Over this short span the portfolio slightly outpaced both the US and global equity benchmarks while having a similar maximum drawdown of about -22%. That drawdown took roughly two months to fall and six months to recover, which is typical for an all‑equity mix. Ten days made up 90% of returns, showing results were driven by a handful of strong days. With less than two years of data, none of these numbers should be treated as a stable long‑term pattern.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection looks 15 years ahead by remixing patterns from the short history into 1,000 simulated paths. Think of it as rolling loaded dice based on past ups and downs to see many possible futures. The median outcome of about €2,800 for €1,000 invested translates to roughly 8% a year across all simulations, with a very wide range between weaker and stronger paths. Around three‑quarters of simulations end with a positive result. Because the inputs come from only 1.7 years of returns, these projections are more fragile than usual; they mainly illustrate uncertainty and the spread of possible outcomes rather than forming a solid expectation.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

All of the portfolio is in stocks, with no allocation to bonds, cash, or alternatives. Asset classes behave differently in various environments: shares tend to drive growth but can swing sharply, while bonds often move more gently and sometimes offset equity falls. A 100% equity allocation means the portfolio is highly dependent on how global companies perform, both in earnings and in investor sentiment. Compared with a multi‑asset benchmark that includes bonds, this structure would typically show higher volatility and deeper drawdowns. Over only 1.7 years, that higher risk has been rewarded, but history shows that purely stock portfolios can experience long rough patches that won’t be visible in such a short sample.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    30%
  • Financials
    15%
  • Industrials
    11%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    10%
  • Telecommunications
    9%
  • Health Care
    7%
  • Consumer Staples
    5%
  • Energy
    5%
  • Basic Materials
    4%
  • Utilities
    2%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Sector exposure is tilted toward technology at about 30%, with financials, industrials, and consumer‑related areas making up much of the rest. This is more tech‑heavy than many broad global benchmarks, which usually have a lower tech share and slightly more in defensive areas like health care and staples. Sector weights matter because different parts of the economy react differently to interest rates, inflation, and growth surprises. A tech‑leaning portfolio can benefit when innovation‑driven companies are in favor, but may feel sharper swings around policy changes or when growth expectations shift. The short history so far includes a strong period for large tech names, which boosts recent results and may not repeat in the same way.

Regions Info

  • North America
    69%
  • Europe Developed
    13%
  • Japan
    6%
  • Asia Developed
    5%
  • Asia Emerging
    4%
  • Australasia
    2%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%
  • Latin America
    1%

Geographically, about 69% of the portfolio is tied to North America, with smaller slices across developed Europe, Japan, and other regions. This is a clear tilt toward one major market, though that market is also the largest part of global equity indices today, so the pattern is broadly aligned with global standards. Geographic spread matters because economic cycles, currencies, and political risks differ by region. A strong North American bias means portfolio outcomes depend heavily on that region’s corporate earnings and monetary policy. The rest of the world still provides some diversification, but the short 1.7‑year sample has been a favorable time for North American equities, which can make this tilt look more consistently rewarding than longer history might.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    44%
  • Large-cap
    31%
  • Mid-cap
    16%
  • Small-cap
    5%
  • Micro-cap
    3%

By market capitalization, there is a clear emphasis on mega‑ and large‑cap companies, together making up about three‑quarters of exposure. Mid‑caps and smaller firms account for the rest, helped by the 10% allocation to global small‑cap value. Market cap size matters because large companies often offer more stability and liquidity, while smaller firms can be more volatile but sometimes have stronger growth or valuation dynamics. This mix leans toward the stability of big firms but still includes a meaningful, though not dominant, slice of smaller names. Over 1.7 years, any apparent advantage or disadvantage of this balance is hard to separate from general market conditions, so it shouldn’t be over‑interpreted as a persistent pattern.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    4.57%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
    • iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
  • Apple Inc.
    4.14%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
    • iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
  • Microsoft Corporation
    3.07%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
    • iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
  • Amazon.com Inc
    2.43%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
    • iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    2.03%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
    • iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
  • Broadcom Inc
    1.91%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
    • iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    1.68%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
    • iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    1.39%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
  • Tesla Inc
    1.28%
    Part of fund(s):
    • LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
    • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
    • iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    1.05%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
  • Top 10 total 23.55%

Looking through the ETFs, the visible top underlying positions include familiar large growth names, with NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft together accounting for over 11% of the portfolio. Several companies appear across multiple funds, especially the global index and the NASDAQ‑focused ETF, creating hidden overlap. Overlap means that although there are three funds, a chunk of risk is concentrated in the same big firms. Because only ETF top‑10 holdings are captured, actual overlap is likely higher than shown. This concentration has worked well in the short period, as these companies have performed strongly, but it also means portfolio results are more tied to a relatively small group of large growth stocks than the fund count alone might suggest.

Risk contribution Info

  • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
    Weight: 80.00%
    77.5%
  • iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
    Weight: 10.00%
    12.5%
  • Avantis Global Small Cap Value UCITS ETF USD Acc EUR
    Weight: 10.00%
    10.0%

Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. The broad global ETF is 80% of the portfolio and contributes about 77% of risk, so its influence is roughly proportional. The NASDAQ‑focused ETF, however, is 10% by weight but adds over 12% of total risk, reflecting its higher volatility and growth concentration. The small‑cap value ETF contributes about 10% of risk, in line with its weight. All three holdings together naturally account for 100% of risk. This pattern shows that even a modest allocation to a more volatile fund can punch above its weight in driving fluctuations, which has helped returns recently but also shapes how future drawdowns could feel.

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.

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

The efficient frontier analysis compares the current mix with other possible weightings of the same three ETFs. The “efficient frontier” is the curve showing the best expected return for each level of risk. The current portfolio sits on or very near this curve, with a Sharpe ratio around 0.9, while the maximum‑Sharpe mix and minimum‑variance mix have somewhat different risk and return combinations but use the same ingredients. A Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of volatility, so higher is better from a risk‑adjusted perspective. The takeaway is that, based on the short data window, this allocation is already quite efficient for its chosen risk level, though any optimization is only as reliable as the limited history feeding the model.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) 0.36%
  • Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation 0.19%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.19%

The overall cost level, captured by the total expense ratio (TER), is low at about 0.19% per year. TER is the annual fee the funds charge, taken directly from fund assets rather than as a separate bill. Two of the ETFs have very low fees, while the NASDAQ‑focused fund is a bit higher at 0.36%, but its small weight keeps the blended cost down. Low ongoing costs are a notable strength because they leave more of the portfolio’s gross return in place to compound. Over many years, even small fee differences can add up meaningfully, so starting from a sub‑0.20% cost base is a positive structural feature regardless of how markets behave in the short run.

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