Portfolio X-ray
The starting point
This portfolio holds a mix of broad index ETFs, thematic funds, a few individual stocks, and a small bond sleeve. Equities dominate at 89%, with 11% in bonds, so the structure leans strongly toward growth rather than capital stability. Within equities, there’s a blend of broad market funds and focused themes like space, video games, genomics, and option-income strategies. One single-stock position, Lockheed Martin, is also fairly large at more than 6%. Overall, the line‑up shows both diversification across many tickers and intentional tilts toward specific themes. That combination can create a portfolio that mostly behaves like a stock market basket but occasionally moves very differently when its thematic pieces dominate returns.
How this exact mix would have done against benchmarks, and the range of outcomes ahead.
Analyze my own portfolio — freeBy asset class, the portfolio is heavily tilted toward stocks at 89%, with 11% in bonds split across short‑term, intermediate, and extended‑duration exposure. Stocks are the main growth engine and tend to swing more with economic news and earnings cycles. Bonds generally move less and can dampen volatility, especially shorter‑term government and investment‑grade corporate bonds. This stock‑heavy mix is consistent with the “speculative” risk label and the high risk score. Having at least some bonds in the blend provides a modest stabilizing element, but given the size, stocks will largely dictate the portfolio’s ups and downs.
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Sector exposure shows clear tilts: technology at 25% and industrials at 17% stand out, with financials, telecom, and healthcare making up much of the rest. This reflects the presence of space, video game, and tech‑focused ETFs layered on top of broad market holdings. Sector concentration matters because different parts of the economy react differently to interest rates, regulation, and growth trends. For example, tech and related themes often move sharply when expectations for future growth or borrowing costs change. The sector mix here is more growth‑ and innovation‑oriented than a classic broad market, which can increase volatility but also makes returns more sensitive to tech and industrial cycles.
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Geographically, about two‑thirds of the portfolio is in North America, with smaller slices in developed Europe and Asia, Japan, and modest positions in emerging regions like Asia, Latin America, and Africa/Middle East. This is somewhat US‑tilted but not unusual compared with common benchmarks that also overweight the US. Geographic spread helps diversify across different economies, political systems, and currencies. When one region struggles, others may hold up better. The presence of developed and emerging markets beyond North America indicates a broad global reach, which aligns well with global diversification practices even though the US remains the dominant driver of portfolio behavior.
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
By market capitalization, the portfolio holds a broad mix: significant allocations to mega‑ and large‑caps, but also meaningful mid‑cap, small‑cap, and even micro‑cap exposure. Market cap simply refers to company size; larger firms often have more stable earnings and deeper trading liquidity, while smaller firms can be more volatile but sometimes provide higher growth potential. This spread across sizes increases diversification compared with a pure large‑cap portfolio. However, small and micro‑cap holdings can amplify swings during market stress. The size profile here is relatively balanced, which supports diversification benefits even though overall risk remains high due to thematic tilts and leverage‑like effects from certain strategies.
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Looking through ETF top holdings, Lockheed Martin appears only as a direct stock and forms a sizeable 6.44% of the portfolio, giving it clear single‑company influence. Mega‑cap tech names like Apple, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Broadcom all show up via ETFs, each around 0.7–3% total exposure. This overlap means several funds are effectively betting on the same big technology leaders, creating hidden concentration even though there are many different tickers. Because only ETF top‑10 positions are captured, real overlap is likely higher. This kind of clustering can make portfolio performance closely tied to a handful of large, dominant companies in growth‑oriented industries.
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 broadly neutral across value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility, with each factor score hovering close to 50%. Factor exposure describes how much a portfolio leans into patterns like cheap vs. expensive stocks (value), large vs. small (size), and recent winners (momentum). A neutral profile suggests the combined holdings behave roughly like a broad market mix from a factor point of view, despite the thematic pieces. That alignment with market‑like factor exposure can be helpful because it reduces the risk that performance is dominated by any one factor style. In this case, the “speculative” nature comes more from specific holdings and strategies than from strong factor tilts.
Risk contribution data shows something striking: the YieldMax ARKK Option Income Strategy ETF, at just 1.51% weight, is estimated to contribute essentially 100% of the portfolio’s overall volatility. Risk contribution measures how much each holding adds to total ups and downs, which can diverge from its percentage weight. A risk‑to‑weight ratio above 60 indicates a highly leveraged or extremely volatile profile for that single position. In contrast, other holdings show near‑zero measured contribution in this period, which is an artifact of the calculation. The result is an extremely concentrated risk structure where one small slice effectively drives the portfolio’s overall risk footprint.
The correlation snapshot highlights groups of ETFs that move almost identically, especially among broad US equity exposures: S&P 500 funds, the total US market ETF, and the Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta large‑cap ETF. Correlation, in simple terms, measures how often and how closely two investments move together. High correlation reduces diversification benefits because those holdings tend to rise and fall at the same time. Here, multiple overlapping large‑cap US funds contribute similar behavior, so adding them does not spread risk as much as their count suggests. The tech ETF and NASDAQ 100 ETF also show near‑identical movement, reinforcing the theme of overlapping growth exposure within the portfolio.
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 far below the curve that represents the best achievable risk/return combinations using these same holdings. The current Sharpe ratio of about 0.51, with extraordinarily high reported “risk,” suggests poor risk‑adjusted performance compared with the optimal mix. The Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of volatility after accounting for a risk‑free rate, like getting “miles per gallon” from a car. The optimal portfolio, at a Sharpe of 1.59 and much lower volatility, indicates that reweighting the existing holdings—without adding anything new—could, in theory, deliver a smoother tradeoff between risk and expected return.
The portfolio’s overall dividend yield is about 2.73%, coming from a mix of broad market ETFs, dividend‑focused funds, and bond ETFs. Yield is the annual cash payout as a percentage of price, and it can be a steady component of total return alongside price changes. There’s a wide range here: some holdings yield near zero, while others, like Global X SuperDividend and the YieldMax ARKK strategy, show very high stated yields. Extremely high yields often come with complex structures or elevated risk, and payouts can vary over time. In aggregate, this yield level is in line with a stock‑heavy, globally diversified portfolio that mixes growth and income‑oriented strategies.
The portfolio’s total expense ratio (TER) is about 0.21%, which is relatively low given the number of specialized products. TER is the annual fee charged by funds, expressed as a percentage of assets, and acts like a small headwind on returns every year. Many core index ETFs here are very cheap, with costs between 0.03% and 0.10%. A few thematic and options‑based funds are more expensive, up to 1.19%, but their small weights keep the overall cost moderate. This fee profile is a strength: keeping average costs down helps more of the portfolio’s gross returns show up in the long‑term net outcome.
What to change in this portfolio and why, based on everything above.
Analyze my own portfolio — freeSelect 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