This portfolio is made up of three broad stock index ETFs, with no bonds or cash. About 70% sits in a total US stock fund, 20% in total international stocks, and 10% in a dedicated technology fund. So it’s essentially a global equity portfolio with an extra layer of tech on top. This kind of structure is easy to understand because each holding is broadly diversified on its own. The main implication is that overall risk and return are driven almost entirely by stock markets. That gives clear growth potential, but also means the portfolio will usually move strongly with global equity ups and downs.
From 2016 to 2026, $1,000 invested here grew to about $4,187, which is a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.44%. CAGR is like your average speed on a long road trip, smoothing out bumps along the way. That’s slightly ahead of the US market and clearly ahead of the global market benchmark over this period. The portfolio’s worst drop, or max drawdown, was about -34% during early 2020, very similar to the benchmarks. This shows the portfolio has behaved like a strong growth-oriented stock mix: impressive long-term returns, but with sharp temporary declines when markets sold off.
The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which is basically running the portfolio’s past behavior through a thousand “what if” futures. Each simulation scrambles returns within the historical pattern to show a range of possible 15‑year outcomes. The median result turns $1,000 into about $2,805, with a wide band from roughly $970 to $8,260 between the more extreme outcomes. The average simulated annual return is 8.36%, lower than the recent historical 15%+ CAGR. This gap highlights a key point: past returns, especially from a strong decade, are not guaranteed going forward, and the future range of outcomes is naturally very broad.
All of this portfolio is in stocks, with 0% in bonds, cash, or other asset classes. Asset classes are broad categories like stocks, bonds, and real estate that tend to behave differently. A 100% stock allocation concentrates everything in the growth engine of companies’ earnings and valuations. The benefit is simple, transparent exposure to long-term economic growth. The trade-off is that there’s no built-in shock absorber from more stable assets, so volatility will likely stay closer to equity market levels. This all‑stock mix aligns closely with the “growth” risk label already assigned and explains the portfolio’s strong historical swings up and down.
Sector-wise, technology makes up about 35% of the portfolio, well above what’s typical in broad global indices, while other sectors like financials, industrials, health care, and consumer areas are more moderate slices. This creates a noticeable tech tilt on top of otherwise diversified sector exposure. Sector allocation matters because different parts of the economy respond differently to things like interest rates, regulation, and innovation cycles. Tech-heavy portfolios often benefit more in periods of strong innovation and low rates, but can be more volatile when growth stocks fall out of favor. Here, that extra 10% dedicated tech fund clearly amplifies the technology footprint beyond the market baseline.
Geographically, around 81% of the portfolio is in North America, with the rest spread across developed Europe, Japan, other developed Asia, and emerging regions like Asia, Latin America, and Africa/Middle East. A global market index is also heavily tilted to North America, so this mix is broadly in line with common benchmarks, just a bit more US‑centric. Geography matters because different regions have different currencies, growth rates, and political risks. This allocation is well-balanced and aligns closely with global standards, meaning most of the world stock market is represented, but the US remains the dominant driver of returns and risk.
By company size, the portfolio leans toward mega-cap and large-cap stocks, which together make up about 73% of exposure, with meaningful but smaller slices in mid, small, and micro-caps. Market capitalization just means the total value of a company’s shares, and size buckets often behave differently. Larger companies tend to be more established and somewhat more stable, while smaller ones can be more volatile but offer different growth dynamics. This spread across sizes supports diversification within equities. At the same time, the dominance of mega and large caps suggests performance will be heavily shaped by the biggest global companies rather than smaller niche names.
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, several big tech and growth names appear multiple times, like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Meta. For example, NVIDIA alone adds up to about 6.3% of the portfolio, and Apple about 5.7%, even though you hold only broad index funds. This is “overlap,” where the same company shows up in more than one ETF and creates hidden concentration. Because we only see ETF top-10s, the true overlap is likely somewhat higher. The insight here is that, underneath the simple three‑ETF surface, a relatively small group of large US tech and growth companies play an outsized role in your portfolio’s behavior.
On factor exposures, the portfolio is almost perfectly neutral across value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility. Factors are characteristics that explain why some groups of stocks behave differently, like buying cheaper “value” names or focusing on more stable “low volatility” stocks. A neutral reading around 50% means the portfolio looks a lot like the broad market on each of these dimensions, without strong tilts. This is consistent with using broad, market‑cap weighted index funds rather than specialized factor products. In practice, this suggests returns are driven more by overall market moves than by intentional bets on any specific factor style.
Risk contribution shows how much each ETF adds to the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which isn’t always the same as its weight. Here, the total US market ETF is 70% of the portfolio and contributes about 70% of the risk, almost one‑for‑one. The international fund is 20% of weight but only about 17% of risk, so it’s slightly less volatile relative to its size. The tech ETF is 10% of weight yet contributes around 12.7% of risk, confirming that it’s punchier than its weight alone suggests. This illustrates how even a modest satellite position in a more volatile area can meaningfully increase overall risk.
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 analysis shows the current portfolio has a Sharpe ratio of 0.64, very close to the minimum variance portfolio’s 0.65 and reasonably below the optimal max‑Sharpe mix at 0.97. The Sharpe ratio measures risk‑adjusted returns, like how much extra return you’re getting for each unit of volatility after accounting for a risk‑free rate. Importantly, the current mix sits on or very near the efficient frontier, meaning that, given these three ETFs, the allocation is already making efficient use of risk. In other words, there isn’t an obvious “free lunch” to improve the risk/return tradeoff just by reweighting these same holdings.
The overall dividend yield of the portfolio is about 1.37%, combining 1.10% from the US total market, 2.80% from international stocks, and 0.40% from the tech ETF. Dividend yield is the annual cash payout from companies as a percentage of the portfolio value. Here, income plays a relatively small role, which is typical for a growth‑oriented equity mix, especially with a tech tilt. Most of the return historically has come from price appreciation rather than dividends. This aligns with the portfolio’s focus on broad equity exposure and growth, rather than on higher‑yielding or income‑focused strategies that might produce more cash but different risk and sector patterns.
The portfolio’s costs are impressively low. The weighted total expense ratio (TER) is about 0.04% per year, with the core US and international funds at 0.03% and 0.05%, and the tech ETF at 0.10%. TER is the annual fee charged by the funds to cover management and operations, quietly deducted from returns. For context, many active funds charge 0.5–1% or more, so this level is extremely lean. Over long periods, even small fee differences can compound into meaningful dollar amounts. Keeping costs this low provides a strong structural tailwind, allowing more of the underlying market returns to stay in the portfolio.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
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.
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey