This portfolio has only about 1 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.
Get this analysis for your own portfolio Paste your holdings — the first report is free and takes about a minute. Analyze mine

Concentrated consumer and energy stock portfolio with strong defensive tilt and high income focus

Report created on Jul 23, 2026

Risk profile Info

2/7
Conservative
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

4/5
Broadly Diversified
Less diversification More diversification
Curious how your own portfolio scores? Same analysis, your holdings. First report free — no card needed. Analyze mine

Positions

This portfolio is built mainly around individual stocks, with three names doing a lot of the heavy lifting. Costco, Valero, and Chevron together make up about 40% of the total weight, while a mix of mutual funds, ETFs, and closed‑end funds fills out the rest. There is also a sizeable cash‑like position in a money market fund, which dampens swings. Because the youngest holding is only about a year old, every metric here reflects a short window, not a full market cycle. That means any apparent pattern in returns or behavior could easily look different over longer periods than the data currently shows.

Growth Info

Over roughly one year, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $1,234, which implies a 22.5% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). CAGR is like average speed on a road trip: it smooths out bumps to show overall pace. In this short period the portfolio slightly outpaced both the US and global equity benchmarks and did so with a shallower maximum drawdown of about -4.2%. A max drawdown is the largest peak‑to‑trough fall. Those are encouraging early numbers, but with only a year of history they mostly reflect recent market conditions and may not represent how this mix behaves in tougher or different environments.

Projection Info

The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which basically means “rerunning history in many random sequences” to see a range of possible futures. Here, 1,000 simulated paths suggest a median outcome of about $2,636 from $1,000 over 15 years, or an average annualized return around 7.6%. The ranges are wide, from roughly $1,163 at the low end (5th percentile) to $6,598 at the high end (95th percentile). That spread shows how uncertain long‑term outcomes can be. Because these simulations are based on only about a year of data, they are much less reliable than projections built from full market cycles and should be seen as rough illustrations, not forecasts.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    81%
  • Bonds
    16%
  • Not classified
    3%
  • Real Estate
    1%

By asset class, about 81% of the portfolio sits in stocks, 16% in bonds, 1% in real estate, and 3% is not classified by the data provider. This is clearly equity‑led but with a meaningful bond and income‑oriented sleeve, which helps smooth the ride compared with a pure‑stock portfolio. That mix aligns reasonably well with a conservative‑tilted equity strategy, especially combined with the money market fund. Historically, stocks tend to drive long‑term growth while bonds and similar assets often cushion volatility. With only a year of history, though, the exact balance between growth and stability here hasn’t been tested through a full interest‑rate or recession cycle, so future behavior could differ from what the recent numbers suggest.

Sectors Info

  • Consumer Staples
    27%
  • Energy
    21%
  • Technology
    10%
  • Financials
    8%
  • Industrials
    7%
  • Telecommunications
    4%
  • Health Care
    4%
  • Utilities
    2%
  • Real Estate
    2%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    1%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    1%
  • Basic Materials
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Sector‑wise, the portfolio is heavily tilted toward consumer staples (27%) and energy (21%), with technology (10%), financials (8%), and industrials (7%) forming the next layer. Consumer staples often behave more defensively because people still buy essentials in many environments, while energy can be quite cyclical and sensitive to commodity prices. Compared to broad global benchmarks, this is notably more concentrated in those two areas and less spread across growth‑heavy sectors. That concentration can be helpful if those sectors do well but can also create bumps when they fall out of favor. Given the short data period, the current strong performance may partly reflect how these sectors have behaved recently rather than a stable long‑term pattern.

Regions Info

  • North America
    79%
  • No data
    11%
  • Latin America
    5%
  • Europe Developed
    3%
  • Japan
    1%
  • Asia Developed
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Geographically, about 79% of the portfolio is in North America, with smaller slices in Latin America (5%), developed Europe (3%), Japan and other developed Asia (about 2% combined), plus 11% where the data source doesn’t provide a region. This is a clear home‑bias toward North America, which lines up with many US‑based portfolios and has worked well in the past decade. However, North American dominance also means the portfolio is very tied to one economic region and currency. Global benchmarks usually have more non‑US exposure. Because the analysis window is just a year, it mainly captures a single phase of US versus international performance, which can swing in multi‑year cycles that aren’t visible here.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    42%
  • Large-cap
    24%
  • Mid-cap
    11%
  • Small-cap
    4%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

By market capitalization, the portfolio leans heavily to larger companies, with about 42% in mega‑caps and 24% in large‑caps. Mid‑caps and small‑caps are present but more modest (around 11% and 4% respectively), with the remainder in assets where cap data isn’t shown. Larger companies often have more diversified businesses and can be less volatile than smaller firms, which fits the “conservative” risk label and high low‑volatility factor reading. At the same time, it means less exposure to the more extreme ups and downs that small‑caps can bring. Since we only see about a year of returns, we don’t yet see how this size mix behaves over a full cycle where small‑caps sometimes lead and sometimes lag significantly.

True holdings Info

  • Costco Wholesale Corp
    21.93%
  • Valero Energy Corporation
    9.58%
  • Chevron Corp
    8.83%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
    Direct holding 8.65%
  • Grupo Aeroportuario del Sureste SAB de CV ADR
    4.51%
  • The Clorox Company
    3.05%
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    1.74%
    Part of fund(s):
    • JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 1.50%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    1.63%
    Part of fund(s):
    • JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 1.05%
  • Tekla Life Sciences Investors
    1.30%
  • Ares Capital Corporation
    1.24%
  • ASML Holding NV ADR
    1.21%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
    Direct holding 1.19%
  • Top 10 total 55.02%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Looking through the funds, Costco, Valero, and Chevron still dominate, and some big names like Alphabet, NVIDIA, and ASML appear both directly and via ETFs. Overlap means the same company can influence results more than its direct holding weight suggests. For example, Chevron’s total exposure is slightly higher than its direct allocation once ETFs are included. The data only captures ETF top‑10 holdings and covers about 62% of the portfolio, so some overlap is missing. Even with that limitation, it’s clear that a handful of individual stocks drive a large share of the underlying exposure. That creates a portfolio where fund diversification is partly offset by concentration in a few core names.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 73%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 74%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 57%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
High
Data availability: 56%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 100%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Very high
Data availability: 71%

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 two notable tilts: very low size and very high low volatility. Factor exposure is like looking at the “traits” of the portfolio — here, it leans toward larger, steadier names rather than smaller, more volatile ones. A very high low‑volatility score (about 82%) suggests many holdings have historically had smoother price paths compared with the broader market. A very low size score (around 10%) confirms the emphasis on bigger companies. These traits often help during choppier markets but may lag in strong, risk‑on rallies when small, speculative names surge. With only around one year of history feeding into these estimates, they likely capture the current mix reasonably well, but their long‑term impact on performance is still uncertain.

Risk contribution Info

  • Costco Wholesale Corp
    Weight: 21.93%
    32.6%
  • Valero Energy Corporation
    Weight: 9.58%
    24.5%
  • Chevron Corp
    Weight: 8.65%
    10.2%
  • Grupo Aeroportuario del Sureste SAB de CV ADR
    Weight: 4.51%
    4.9%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
    Weight: 4.64%
    4.1%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 76.2%

Risk contribution measures how much each holding adds to the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. Here, Costco, Valero, and Chevron together contribute about 67% of total portfolio risk while accounting for roughly 40% of the weight. Valero stands out: at about 9.6% of the portfolio, it contributes around 24.5% of the risk, more than double its share by size. That pattern shows a meaningful concentration of risk in just a few positions. In practice, this means day‑to‑day performance will be heavily influenced by how these three stocks behave, even though there are many other holdings in the mix.

Redundant positions Info

  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
    High correlation

The correlation data highlights that JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF and NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF have moved almost identically over the available period. Correlation is a measure of how two investments move together; highly correlated assets often rise and fall at the same time. Because both funds are tied to the same underlying index family, it makes sense they behave similarly. This limits diversification benefits between them — holding both does not create two independent return streams. With only about a year of shared history, though, the exact level of correlation may change over longer horizons, especially if their income strategies or option overlays react differently to future market conditions.

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

On the risk‑return chart, the current portfolio sits below the efficient frontier. The efficient frontier represents the best achievable return for each risk level using only the current holdings but in different weightings. The current Sharpe ratio — a measure of return per unit of risk — is about 1.89, while the maximum Sharpe portfolio using the same ingredients is much higher at 4.45. That gap suggests that, based on this short historical sample, a different mix of the existing positions could have delivered better risk‑adjusted results. At the same time, the minimum‑variance mix shows it is possible to reduce volatility a lot with lower returns. Since this is all driven by only a year of data, these “optimal” points should be viewed as illustrative, not precise targets.

Dividends Info

  • Adams Diversified Equity Closed Fund 7.10%
  • Ares Capital Corporation 10.20%
  • ASML Holding NV ADR 0.50%
  • Grupo Aeroportuario del Sureste SAB de CV ADR 14.50%
  • Saba Closed-End Funds ETF 7.20%
  • The Clorox Company 5.20%
  • Costco Wholesale Corp 0.60%
  • Chevron Corp 3.60%
  • Eaton Vance Tax Managed Buy Write Opportunities Closed Fund 7.30%
  • Gabelli Equity Trust Closed Fund 10.70%
  • Alphabet Inc Class C 0.20%
  • John Hancock Preferred Income II Closed Fund 8.60%
  • Tekla Life Sciences Investors 10.30%
  • Invesco Quality Municipal Income Closed Fund 6.90%
  • JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF 10.50%
  • Main Street Capital Corporation 8.00%
  • Neuberger Berman MLP 6.50%
  • NVIDIA Corporation 0.10%
  • Pimco Corporate & Income Strategy Fund 10.70%
  • Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock 9.10%
  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 14.00%
  • Cohen & Steers Real Estate Opportunities and Income Fund 7.60%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.20%
  • Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund 3.70%
  • SCHWAB TARGET 2030 INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL SHARES 2.30%
  • Cohen and Steers Infrastructure Closed Fund 6.20%
  • Valero Energy Corporation 1.50%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
  • Vanguard Value Index Fund ETF Shares 1.90%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.60%
  • Kurv Gold Enhanced Income ETF 15.20%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 3.87%

Income is a clear theme: many holdings have high stated dividend yields, with several closed‑end funds and income‑focused ETFs in the high single to mid‑teens range. The overall portfolio yield of about 3.9% is well above broad market averages and is supported by preferred stock funds, covered‑call strategies, and higher‑yielding equities. Dividends can provide a steady cash flow and have historically been an important part of total equity returns. It’s worth remembering that unusually high yields often reflect higher underlying risk, use of leverage, or option strategies, and that distributions can change over time. Since we only see about a year of history, we don’t yet have evidence of how stable these payouts are across different market environments.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Adams Diversified Equity Closed Fund 0.59%
  • Saba Closed-End Funds ETF 5.81%
  • Eaton Vance Tax Managed Buy Write Opportunities Closed Fund 1.09%
  • Gabelli Equity Trust Closed Fund 1.40%
  • John Hancock Preferred Income II Closed Fund 2.35%
  • JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF 0.35%
  • Neuberger Berman MLP 1.98%
  • Pimco Corporate & Income Strategy Fund 0.85%
  • Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock 2.52%
  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 0.68%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund 0.34%
  • SCHWAB TARGET 2030 INDEX FUND INSTITUTIONAL SHARES 0.08%
  • Cohen and Steers Infrastructure Closed Fund 2.29%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Vanguard Value Index Fund ETF Shares 0.04%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.26%

The blended ongoing cost (TER) across funds is about 0.26%, which is quite reasonable overall, especially given the mix of index funds and more complex strategies. Low‑cost index products like the Vanguard and Schwab ETFs bring the average down, while several closed‑end and specialty funds sit above 1%, with one around 5.8%. Fees matter because they come off returns every year, and over long periods even small differences compound. In this case, the overall cost level is impressively low for such a diversified and income‑oriented mix. The short return history means we can’t yet see how much of each fund’s fee is “earned” through distinctive behavior, but structurally the fee drag on the portfolio as a whole is modest.

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

Compare your holdings

How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?

AVDV vs VOO SCHD vs SGOV DRAM vs VOO SPMO vs VXUS

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