Balanced us focused portfolio with low costs solid income and efficient risk adjusted positioning

Report created on Apr 1, 2026

Risk profile

  • Secure
    Speculative

The risk profile, derived from past market volatility, reflects the level of risk the portfolio is exposed to. This assessment helps align your investments with your financial goals and comfort with market fluctuations.

Diversification profile

  • Focused
    Diversified

The diversification assessment evaluates the spread of investments across asset classes, regions, and sectors. This ensures a balanced mix, reducing risk and maximizing returns by not concentrating in any single area.

Positions

The portfolio is built from four ETFs, with almost half in a total US stock market fund and the rest split between large‑cap growth, dividend‑focused stocks, and a bond ETF. This mix blends broad equity exposure with a tilt toward growth and income, plus a stabilizing bond sleeve. Structuring a portfolio this way makes it easier to understand how each “bucket” contributes: growth for long‑term upside, dividends for cash flow, and bonds for ballast. The main takeaway is that this is a simple, easy‑to-manage setup that still covers a lot of bases, which fits well with a balanced risk profile that doesn’t chase extremes in either safety or aggressiveness.

Growth Info

From mid‑2020 to early‑2026, $1,000 grew to about $2,087, giving a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.48%. CAGR is like the average yearly “speed” of growth over the whole period. The max drawdown of –22.9% shows the worst peak‑to‑trough drop, which is meaningful for understanding real‑world pain during bad markets. Compared with benchmarks, this portfolio slightly lagged the US market but slightly beat the global market, while having a smaller drawdown than both. That’s a respectable outcome and suggests the risk/return balance has been healthy, though it also shows that heavy US exposure didn’t fully capture the strongest US‑only growth.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection runs 1,000 simulated futures using past returns and volatility patterns to estimate a range of possible outcomes. Think of it as re‑rolling history in many different sequences to see how often things turn out well or poorly. The median 15‑year result of $2,621 suggests an annualized return around 7.37%, with a wide but reasonable range between roughly $1,100 and $6,300. This spread shows uncertainty: long‑term investing rarely follows a straight line. The big lesson is that while odds of a positive outcome look favorable, there is still meaningful downside risk, and future returns could be lower or higher than the historical sample used.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    84%
  • Bonds
    16%

Asset‑class exposure is straightforward: about 84% in stocks and 16% in bonds. That’s an equity‑heavy mix, typical for a “balanced but growth‑oriented” stance, and it lines up reasonably well with many moderate risk models. Stocks drive long‑term growth but bring more volatility; bonds usually dampen swings and can offer income. A 16% bond slice won’t completely cushion big equity sell‑offs but should soften the worst bumps compared with an all‑stock portfolio. The main implication is that this setup is still primarily designed to grow capital over time, not to maximize stability, which makes sense for investors with some tolerance for market ups and downs.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    27%
  • Health Care
    10%
  • Financials
    9%
  • Telecommunications
    9%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    8%
  • Industrials
    7%
  • Consumer Staples
    6%
  • Energy
    5%
  • Basic Materials
    1%
  • Utilities
    1%
  • Real Estate
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Sector exposure is led by technology at 27%, with health care, financials, telecom, consumer, and industrials spreading risk across the rest. This sector mix is reasonably close to broad US market weights, which is helpful because it avoids big bets on any one part of the economy. A tech tilt is normal in US‑centric portfolios and has rewarded investors recently, but it can be more sensitive to interest rates and sentiment shifts. The presence of more defensive sectors like consumer staples, utilities, and health care provides some balance. Overall, the sector composition looks well‑balanced and aligns closely with broad‑market standards, supporting solid diversification.

Regions Info

  • North America
    84%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Geographically, about 84% of exposure is in North America, which essentially means a strong US focus. This has been a tailwind over the last decade since US markets outperformed many other regions. However, it also ties outcomes heavily to a single economy, currency, and policy environment. Global benchmarks typically have lower US weight and more representation from other developed and emerging markets. Concentration in one region can increase vulnerability if that region underperforms or faces structural challenges. The key takeaway is that this portfolio captures US strength effectively while leaving relatively limited room for diversification benefits from other major global markets.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    33%
  • Large-cap
    31%
  • Mid-cap
    15%
  • Small-cap
    4%
  • Micro-cap
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

By market cap, the portfolio leans toward mega‑ and large‑cap stocks, which together make up over 60%, with smaller slices in mid‑, small‑, and micro‑caps. Larger companies tend to be more stable, widely followed, and often less volatile, while smaller firms can offer higher growth potential but bumpier rides. This distribution is broadly in line with market‑cap‑weighted indices, which naturally emphasize the biggest companies. The advantage is a smoother experience than a small‑cap‑heavy portfolio, but with less exposure to the “extra” growth that smaller names can sometimes deliver. For most balanced investors, this big‑company tilt is a sensible, mainstream stance.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    5.60%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Apple Inc
    4.91%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    3.70%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    2.71%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    2.26%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    1.99%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    1.81%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    1.70%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • Tesla Inc
    1.60%
    Part of fund(s):
    • LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
    • Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
    • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
  • BlackRock Cash Funds Treasury SL Agency
    1.16%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares Trust
  • Top 10 total 27.45%

Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, there’s notable exposure to a handful of mega‑cap names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet, with NVIDIA alone around 5.6% of the portfolio. Several of these companies appear in multiple ETFs, which creates “hidden” concentration even if individual ETF weights look modest. This matters because the portfolio’s day‑to‑day moves will be meaningfully driven by how these giants perform, especially in tech and communication areas. Since only top‑10 ETF holdings are shown, the true overlap is probably a bit higher. The key takeaway is that the portfolio is diversified by fund count but still leans on a small group of dominant US companies.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 84%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Neutral
Data availability: 84%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 84%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Neutral
Data availability: 84%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 100%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 84%

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 is very close to neutral across value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility, hovering around the 50% mark on each. Factors are like the underlying “personality traits” of a portfolio that academic research has linked to returns and risks, such as cheapness (value) or stability (low volatility). Being near neutral means the portfolio behaves much like the broad market rather than making strong bets on any one style. That’s actually a strength here: returns are less dependent on any single factor being in favor or out of favor, which can reduce the risk of sharp underperformance during style rotations.

Risk contribution Info

  • Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF
    Weight: 47.37%
    56.2%
  • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
    Weight: 21.05%
    30.5%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
    Weight: 15.79%
    13.3%
  • iShares Trust
    Weight: 15.79%
    0.0%

Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weight. The broad US market ETF is 47% of the portfolio but contributes about 56% of risk, while the large‑cap growth ETF is 21% of weight yet contributes over 30% of risk. The dividend ETF contributes less risk than its weight, and the bond ETF essentially contributes none over the measured period, acting as a stabilizer. This tells us that the portfolio’s risk is mostly coming from the two equity growth funds. If someone wanted to dial risk up or down, tweaking those weights would have the biggest impact.

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‑return chart shows the current portfolio has a Sharpe ratio of 0.66, while the optimal mix of the same holdings reaches 0.91. The Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk, after accounting for a risk‑free rate, so higher is better. The analysis indicates the current allocation lies on or very close to the efficient frontier, meaning it’s already making good use of these holdings for the chosen risk level. There is some room for improvement by slightly reweighting, but no obvious structural problem. The main takeaway is reassuring: within this set of ETFs, the balance between risk and expected return is already quite efficient.

Dividends Info

  • Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF 1.20%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
  • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.40%
  • iShares Trust 4.00%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.82%

The overall dividend yield is about 1.82%, coming from a mix of higher‑yielding ETFs and growth‑oriented funds that pay little. Dividends are the cash payouts companies make to shareholders and can be a meaningful part of total return over time, especially when reinvested. Here, the dedicated dividend ETF and the bond ETF deliver relatively strong yields, while the growth ETF is more focused on price appreciation than income. This blend suits investors who want some ongoing cash flow without giving up growth potential. It’s a balanced approach: not a high‑income portfolio, but one where dividends provide a steady, supportive contribution.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF 0.03%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.04%
  • iShares Trust 0.07%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.04%

The total expense ratio (TER) across the ETFs is extremely low at around 0.04%. TER is the annual fee charged by funds, expressed as a percentage of assets; it quietly comes out of returns each year. Keeping these costs minimal is one of the most reliable ways to improve long‑term outcomes because fees compound in reverse. Here, the use of low‑cost index ETFs is a real strength. The costs are impressively low, supporting better long‑term performance and leaving more of the portfolio’s returns in the investor’s pocket instead of going to fund managers. That’s a solid foundation for any long‑term strategy.

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