Broad US equity core with tech tilt and efficient low cost structure
Report created on Apr 25, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 40.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 20.00% -
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 20.00% -
AV Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF
AVUV - US0250728773 10.00% -
SP Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
SPMO - US46138E3392 10.00%
This portfolio is a five‑ETF, all‑equity mix anchored by broad US exposure. Around 60% sits in large US indexes, with 40% in a standard S&P 500 tracker and 20% in a NASDAQ‑100 fund that leans toward high‑growth companies. Another 20% goes to a total international stock ETF, giving exposure outside the US. The remaining 20% is split between a US small‑cap value fund and an S&P 500 momentum ETF, which add more targeted “satellite” tilts. Structurally, this looks like a classic core‑and‑satellites setup: a diversified core holding most of the assets, and smaller slices chasing specific return patterns around it. That design balances simplicity with a bit of extra flavor.
Growth
From late 2020 to April 2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $2,235, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.72%. CAGR is the “average yearly speed” over the journey, smoothing out all the ups and downs. Over the same period, it slightly beat a broad US market benchmark and more clearly outpaced the global market. The deepest drop, or max drawdown, was about –25%, similar to the benchmarks, showing it behaved like a normal equity portfolio in tough markets. The fact that 26 individual days generated 90% of total returns underlines how a handful of strong days can drive long‑term results, and why missing them can matter a lot. Past performance, of course, can’t guarantee similar future outcomes.
Projection
The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which is basically a thousand “what if” replays of the future using the portfolio’s past behavior as a guide. Each simulation shakes returns and volatility in different random combinations, then tracks where $1,000 could end up after 15 years. Here, the median outcome is around $2,784, with a fairly wide but reasonable range around that. The model shows about a 76% chance of ending with more than the starting $1,000, and an average simulated return of 8.15% a year. That’s meaningfully higher than the assumed cash return. Still, these are statistical scenarios, not predictions; actual markets can deliver outcomes outside the 5–95% range, especially during extreme events.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of this portfolio is in stocks, with no bonds, cash, or alternative assets in the mix. That makes the asset‑class picture very simple but also firmly growth‑oriented. Equity‑only portfolios tend to have higher expected long‑term returns than mixed stock‑and‑bond blends, but they also swing more in the short term and can see deeper drawdowns. Many global benchmarks used for comparison are also equity‑only, so from that perspective the portfolio lines up well. The key implication is that diversification here comes from spreading across different kinds of equities, not from mixing in more defensive asset classes that might cushion stock market downturns.
Sectors
- Technology 33%
- Financials 13%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Industrials 10%
- Telecommunications 10%
- Health Care 7%
- Consumer Staples 6%
- Energy 5%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector‑wise, technology stands out at about a third of the portfolio, with the rest spread across financials, consumer areas, industrials, telecom, health care, and smaller slices of other groups. Many broad equity benchmarks today are also tech‑heavy, but this portfolio leans further into that theme because of the NASDAQ‑100 and momentum exposure. Tech and related growth sectors often benefit in periods of innovation and low or stable interest rates, but they can be more volatile when rates rise or when investors rotate toward more defensive businesses. The presence of meaningful weights in financials, industrials, and consumer sectors helps soften the concentration somewhat, yet the tech tilt still clearly shapes risk and return behavior.
Regions
- North America 81%
- Europe Developed 8%
- Japan 3%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Asia Emerging 3%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
- Latin America 1%
Geographically, about 81% of the portfolio is in North America, with the remainder split across developed Europe, Japan, other developed and emerging Asian markets, and small slices in Australasia, Latin America, and Africa/Middle East. Compared with a global equity index, this is a heavier US tilt, as global benchmarks usually have the US closer to 60%. A strong US bias has been rewarded over the past decade, especially with the outperformance of large US growth companies. At the same time, it means the portfolio’s fortunes are closely tied to one economy, currency, and market style. The 20% in international stocks still adds useful geographic breadth and exposure to different economic cycles.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 41%
- Large-cap 33%
- Mid-cap 14%
- Small-cap 6%
- Micro-cap 5%
The market‑cap breakdown shows clear emphasis on the largest companies, with about 41% in mega‑caps and 33% in large‑caps. Mid‑caps, small‑caps, and micro‑caps together make up a bit over a quarter of the exposure, thanks in part to the dedicated US small‑cap value ETF. Large and mega‑cap companies often dominate major indexes and can offer more stability, deeper liquidity, and stronger balance sheets. Smaller companies tend to be more volatile but can behave differently across market cycles and sometimes deliver bursts of stronger growth. This mix leans toward the stability and index‑like behavior of big firms while still giving room for smaller companies to influence returns and add diversification at the edges.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 5.75%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 4.09%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.12%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.55%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.43%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.40%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.01%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.61%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.45%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
23 Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 0.69%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
- Top 10 total 26.11%
Looking through to the underlying holdings, a handful of big names appear across multiple ETFs: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Broadcom, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla, and Taiwan Semiconductor are all notable. Because each ETF only discloses its top 10 holdings here, overlap is likely understated, but even within that limited view you can see that several companies cluster near 2–6% of total portfolio exposure. When the same stock shows up in multiple funds, it creates “hidden” concentration: different tickers, but similar underlying bets. In practice, this means portfolio performance will be especially sensitive to the fortunes of large global tech and platform companies, even if no single stock is directly held.
Factors
The factor profile is remarkably balanced, with value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility all sitting close to neutral. Factor exposure is like checking which “traits” the portfolio leans into, such as cheapness (value), recent winners (momentum), or stability (low volatility). Here, the numbers hover around 50%, which is defined as market‑average. That’s interesting because the holdings include a small‑cap value ETF and a momentum ETF, yet the big core index funds effectively pull the overall mix back toward the middle. This suggests that, despite some targeted tilts in individual funds, the total portfolio behaves much like a broad, well‑diversified equity market in terms of factor characteristics.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 40.00% 38.5% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 20.00% 24.5% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 20.00% 16.2% -
Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF
Weight: 10.00% 10.8% -
Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
Weight: 10.00% 10.1%
Risk contribution shows how much each ETF drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can be quite different from simple weights. The 40% S&P 500 ETF contributes about 39% of total risk, very close to its size. The NASDAQ‑100 fund, at 20% weight, adds roughly 24% of risk, meaning it punches slightly above its weight because of its higher volatility. The international fund contributes a bit less risk than its 20% share, reflecting somewhat different behavior. The two 10% satellite funds each contribute around 10–11% of risk. Overall, the top three positions generate about 79% of total portfolio risk, so most of the ride is determined by those core funds rather than the smaller tilts.
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 risk‑versus‑return chart, the current portfolio sits below the efficient frontier, meaning it is not making the most of its holdings for the level of volatility taken. The Sharpe ratio, which measures return per unit of risk above cash, is 0.71 here versus 1.02 for the optimal mix using the same ETFs. The minimum‑variance version of this lineup would deliver lower risk and a slightly higher Sharpe than the current setup, though with a lower expected return. In plain terms, the data suggests that simply rearranging the weights among these five funds—without adding new ones—could have produced a historically better balance between risk and return.
Dividends
- Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 1.30%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF 0.80%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.80%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.31%
The portfolio’s overall dividend yield, at about 1.31%, is modest. Yield is the annual income from dividends divided by the portfolio value, like a “salary” paid by the holdings. The international stock ETF is the strongest income contributor at 2.8%, while the NASDAQ‑100 and momentum funds sit well below 1%, reflecting their growth focus. This pattern is typical for growth‑tilted, US‑heavy portfolios, where companies often reinvest earnings rather than paying them out. In practice, most of the historical return here has come from price changes rather than cash income. For someone tracking total return, that’s perfectly fine; for income‑focused approaches, the yield component is relatively small.
Ongoing product costs
- Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 0.25%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF 0.13%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.09%
The cost profile is a clear strength. The weighted average TER (Total Expense Ratio) is about 0.09%, which is very low by industry standards. TER is the annual fee charged by each ETF as a percentage of assets, quietly deducted inside the fund. Keeping this number small leaves more of the portfolio’s gains in place to compound over time. The core Vanguard funds are particularly inexpensive, and even the more specialized Avantis and Invesco strategies are reasonably priced for what they offer. Over many years, the difference between a 0.09% TER and a higher‑fee setup can add up to a meaningful gap in ending wealth, so this cost discipline is a real positive.
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!
Compare your holdings
How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?
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