Growth focused US equity portfolio with strong tech tilt and moderate diversification across styles and sizes
Report created on May 9, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 35.00% -
VT Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
VTI - US9229087690 25.00% -
AV Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF
AVUV - US0250728773 15.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 10.00% -
SO iShares Semiconductor ETF
SOXX - US4642875235 10.00% -
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 5.00%
This portfolio is a 100% equity mix with six ETFs and a clear focus on US stocks. Roughly one third sits in a NASDAQ 100 tracker, another quarter in a broad total US market ETF, and smaller slices in US small-cap value, US dividend stocks, semiconductors, and a modest global ex‑US position. Structurally, it blends broad market exposure with a few targeted “satellites” that lean into growth, dividends, and small caps. This type of core‑and‑satellite setup matters because broad funds provide general market capture, while focused funds can meaningfully change risk and return. Here, the combination creates a growth‑oriented, tech‑tilted portfolio that still keeps some exposure to value, dividends, and international markets.
Growth
From late 2020 to May 2026, a $1,000 hypothetical investment grew to about $2,576, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 18.6%. CAGR is like your average speed on a long road trip, smoothing out bumps. Over the same period, the US market returned 15.78% and the global market 13.66%, so this portfolio outpaced both. The worst drop, or max drawdown, was about -27.5%, slightly deeper than the US market but similar to global stocks. That shows the growth tilt added upside but also extra downside at times. Notably, just 29 days made up 90% of total returns, underlining how missing a few strong days could have dramatically changed the experience.
Projection
The Monte Carlo simulation projects many possible 15‑year paths based on historical behavior, then summarizes them. Monte Carlo basically runs “what if” scenarios thousands of times, mixing return and volatility patterns seen in the past. Here, the median outcome turns $1,000 into about $2,773, with a central range of roughly $1,822–$4,127 and a wide possible band from about $972–$7,339. The average simulated annual return is 7.97%, noticeably lower than the recent 18.6% CAGR, which reflects more conservative expectations. These projections are not forecasts; they simply show how uncertain equity returns can be. Even with a positive skew of outcomes, there’s still a meaningful chance of flat or negative results over long stretches.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All assets in this portfolio are equities, so there is no built‑in ballast from bonds or cash. That means the portfolio is fully exposed to stock market swings, which can be powerful for long‑term growth but also sharp in downturns. Compared to many blended portfolios that mix stocks and bonds, this structure naturally sits on the higher‑risk end. Versus a broad global equity benchmark, the 100% stock allocation is similar in type but focused on just one asset class, so diversification comes only from different kinds of stocks rather than different asset types. The result is a growth‑heavy profile where returns and risk are closely tied to equity cycles.
Sectors
- Technology 41%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Telecommunications 9%
- Financials 9%
- Industrials 7%
- Health Care 7%
- Consumer Staples 7%
- Energy 6%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Utilities 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector exposure is dominated by technology at 41%, with the rest spread across consumer discretionary, telecom, financials, industrials, health care, staples, energy, materials, utilities, and real estate. Compared with a broad global or US market index, this is a clearly tech‑overweight setup, boosted by the NASDAQ 100 and semiconductor ETF. Tech‑heavy portfolios often shine when innovation and earnings growth are rewarded, but they can be more sensitive to interest rates and shifts in investor sentiment toward growth stocks. The presence of dividend and value‑oriented ETFs helps keep some exposure to more defensive sectors, yet the overall character still leans toward cyclical, growth‑driven areas rather than slow‑and‑steady segments.
Regions
- North America 93%
- Europe Developed 3%
- Asia Developed 1%
- Asia Emerging 1%
- Japan 1%
- Latin America 1%
Geographically, about 93% of the portfolio sits in North America, with only small allocations to Europe, Japan, developed Asia, emerging Asia, and Latin America. This is a much stronger US tilt than global benchmarks like MSCI ACWI, where the US is big but not this dominant. A home‑country concentration like this can work well when US markets lead, as they have for much of the last decade, but it also ties the portfolio’s fate to one economy, one political system, and largely one currency. The small international sleeve does introduce some non‑US growth and currency exposure, but it’s too modest to materially change overall geographic risk.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 35%
- Large-cap 33%
- Mid-cap 14%
- Small-cap 10%
- Micro-cap 7%
The market‑cap breakdown shows 35% in mega‑caps and 33% in large‑caps, with the rest in mid, small, and micro‑caps. That’s a broad spectrum, but still clearly anchored in bigger companies, which is typical for cap‑weighted indexes. The dedicated small‑cap value ETF and exposure to micro‑caps bring in more company‑specific variety and often higher volatility, since smaller firms can move more sharply on news. Including all size buckets matters because different cap ranges can lead and lag at different points in the cycle. Here, the structure blends the stability and liquidity of giants with some punch from smaller, more idiosyncratic businesses, without letting small caps dominate.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 5.12%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
- iShares Semiconductor ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 3.99%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 2.93%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.58%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
- iShares Semiconductor ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.57%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 2.10%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- iShares Semiconductor ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.03%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.79%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.59%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.57%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
- Top 10 total 26.28%
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, several mega‑cap names appear across multiple funds, creating hidden concentration. NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Broadcom, Amazon, Alphabet (both share classes), Tesla, Meta, and Micron collectively make up a meaningful slice, with NVIDIA alone at about 5.1% of the total portfolio. Because the look‑through only covers ETF top‑10s, overall overlap is probably understated. This clustering matters because, during periods when these large tech and communication names move together, the portfolio will likely follow them closely. Even though there are six ETFs, the underlying economic exposure is more concentrated in a handful of big growth companies than the fund count suggests.
Factors
Factor exposures are broadly neutral across value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility, all hovering near the 50% “market‑like” level. Factor investing looks at characteristics like cheapness (value) or recent winners (momentum) that research links to returns. Here, no single style stands out as a strong tilt. That means the performance is driven more by sectors, geography, and a few big holdings than by a systematic factor bet. The mix of small‑cap value, NASDAQ growth, dividends, and broad indexes essentially balances itself out. In practice, this suggests the portfolio may behave similarly to a diversified equity market, just with a noticeable tech and US emphasis rather than a clear factor leaning.
Risk contribution
-
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 35.00% 38.1% -
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 25.00% 21.9% -
iShares Semiconductor ETF
Weight: 10.00% 16.4% -
Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF
Weight: 15.00% 14.4% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 10.00% 5.8% - Top 5 risk contribution 96.6%
Risk contribution shows how much each ETF drives overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. The NASDAQ 100 fund is 35% of the portfolio but contributes about 38% of total risk, reflecting its growth and tech focus. The semiconductor ETF is 10% of assets yet 16.4% of risk, a high risk‑to‑weight ratio of 1.64, so it punches above its size. By contrast, the dividend ETF is 10% of weight but only 5.8% of risk, acting as a stabilizer. Overall, the top three holdings account for roughly 76% of portfolio risk, showing that a handful of positions largely determine volatility despite the six‑ETF lineup.
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 compares risk and return using only the current holdings in different weights. The current portfolio has a Sharpe ratio of 0.77, which measures return per unit of risk after accounting for a 4% risk‑free rate. The maximum‑Sharpe mix of these same ETFs hits 1.01 with higher risk and return, while the minimum‑variance mix achieves 0.85 Sharpe at lower risk. At its present volatility level, the portfolio sits about 1.82 percentage points below the frontier, meaning it’s not using its existing building blocks as efficiently as possible. Reweighting just these six funds—without adding anything new—could, in theory, improve the balance between risk and reward.
Dividends
- Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 1.30%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.30%
- iShares Semiconductor ETF 0.30%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.00%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.70%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.08%
The overall dividend yield is about 1.08%, which is modest for an equity portfolio and reflects its growth focus. Yield is the cash income from dividends relative to price, separate from price gains. The dedicated dividend ETF stands out at roughly 3.3%, and the international ETF also offers a higher yield around 2.7%, while the NASDAQ 100 and semiconductor funds pay very little. This mix means total return will likely be driven more by price appreciation than by income, especially given the heavy tech exposure. The higher‑yield slices still contribute a meaningful share of the cash flow, providing some regular income even in more growth‑oriented market environments.
Ongoing product costs
- Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 0.25%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- iShares Semiconductor ETF 0.35%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.14%
The portfolio’s weighted total expense ratio (TER) is around 0.14%, which is impressively low for an actively structured mix of ETFs. TER is the annual fee charged by funds, taken out of returns behind the scenes. Most holdings sit in the low single‑basis‑point range, with only the semiconductor ETF at 0.35% and the small‑cap value ETF at 0.25% meaningfully higher. Low ongoing costs matter because they compound over decades: every 0.1% saved each year keeps more of the portfolio’s gross return in the investor’s pocket. Here, the cost structure is a strong positive, especially given the blend of broad market, factor, and thematic exposures.
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