This portfolio has only about 7 months 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.

High growth aggressive stock portfolio with strong US tilt and heavy technology influence

Report created on Apr 18, 2026

Risk profile Info

6/7
Aggressive
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

2/5
Low Diversity
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio is almost entirely in stock ETFs, with an extremely heavy tilt toward broad US equities and a few focused growth and tech positions. Just under half sits in a broad US index, while a sizable slice targets dividend payers and another chunk leans into growth and semiconductors. Cash and cash-like holdings are tiny. That structure puts return potential front and center while leaving very little shock absorber for big market swings. Because the history is only about seven months, it is too early to say how this mix behaves in different market cycles; the current setup simply indicates a clear preference for equity-driven growth over stability.

Growth Info

Over the short seven‑month window, $1,000 grew to about $1,166, which works out to a huge annualized CAGR of roughly 298%. CAGR, or compound annual growth rate, is like asking, “If this path continued smoothly, what yearly pace would match it?” That pace is almost certainly inflated by a brief hot streak and should not be viewed as sustainable. The portfolio also saw a relatively mild max drawdown of about ‑6%, similar to the benchmarks. With only a handful of days driving 90% of returns, results are very path‑dependent. Over such a limited period, outperformance versus US and global markets is interesting, but it does not yet prove a durable edge or repeatable pattern.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection uses the short recent history to simulate 1,000 possible 15‑year paths, scrambling returns to show a range of outcomes rather than one forecast. It suggests a median outcome of around $2,618 from $1,000, with a wide “likely” band and roughly a 72% chance of ending ahead. Monte Carlo is like running the same movie with different weather each time to see how often things work out. Because the input history covers only about seven months, these numbers are especially fragile; they mostly reflect recent strong performance and may overstate long‑run return potential and understate how bad a rough decade could be.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    99%
  • No data
    1%

Almost 99% of this portfolio is in stocks, with just a sliver in a money market fund labeled as “no data” for asset class. That equity‑heavy mix maximizes growth potential but offers almost no built‑in cushion if markets fall hard or stay flat for several years. Broad market benchmarks typically include some bonds or cash, which can soften drawdowns and reduce volatility. Here, the risk score of 6/7 matches the reality: this is an aggressive profile where portfolio value will likely move up and down more than a mixed‑asset or more defensive setup. For someone seeking steadier returns, adding other asset types would usually be the lever, though that is outside this analysis.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    42%
  • Health Care
    9%
  • Financials
    9%
  • Telecommunications
    9%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    8%
  • Consumer Staples
    7%
  • Industrials
    7%
  • Energy
    5%
  • Utilities
    1%
  • Basic Materials
    1%
  • Real Estate
    1%

Sector‑wise, technology is the clear star at about 42%, with the rest spread across health care, financials, telecom, consumer areas, industrials, energy, and a bit in utilities, materials, and real estate. Compared with broad benchmarks, that tech share is high, which lines up with the strong recent performance but also raises sensitivity to tech‑specific issues like regulation, rates, or chip cycles. When interest rates rise or sentiment turns against growth, tech‑heavy portfolios often swing harder than the market. The positive side is that leadership in innovation can drive strong returns in favorable environments. With only seven months of data, the recent tech strength could easily be masking how sharp future drawdowns in this sector might feel.

Regions Info

  • North America
    94%
  • Europe Developed
    2%
  • Asia Developed
    2%
  • Asia Emerging
    1%

Geographically, about 94% of the exposure is in North America, with very small allocations to developed Europe, developed Asia, and emerging Asia. This is far more US‑centric than global equity benchmarks, where non‑US regions account for a much larger share of total market value. A strong home bias has helped recently, as US markets and especially US tech leadership have run hot. But it also ties most of the portfolio’s fate to one economy, one policy regime, and largely one currency. Over decades, other regions can lead at times. With only a short lookback, it is impossible to see how this regional concentration would behave in a period when the US underperforms.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    42%
  • Mega-cap
    39%
  • Mid-cap
    15%
  • Small-cap
    2%

Market‑cap exposure is dominated by mega‑ and large‑cap companies, together over 80% of the portfolio, with modest mid‑cap and tiny small‑cap slices. This lines up pretty well with major indices, which are market‑cap weighted and naturally tilt toward the biggest firms. Large and mega companies tend to be more stable businesses with more diversified revenue streams and better access to capital, which can dampen volatility relative to pure small‑cap portfolios. The trade‑off is less direct exposure to the potential outsize gains of smaller, earlier‑stage companies. Over only seven months, the behavior of size segments is noisy, so this tilt mostly tells you that the portfolio’s ups and downs will broadly resemble big‑company benchmarks more than small‑cap heavy strategies.

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    8.30%
    Part of fund(s):
    • VanEck Semiconductor ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Apple Inc
    5.54%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    4.01%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    2.93%
    Part of fund(s):
    • VanEck Semiconductor ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Amazon.com Inc
    2.26%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    2.07%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    1.65%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    1.55%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Tesla Inc
    1.29%
    Part of fund(s):
    • LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
    1.24%
    Part of fund(s):
    • VanEck Semiconductor ETF
  • Top 10 total 30.84%

Looking through the ETFs, a big chunk of risk clusters in a small group of mega‑cap technology and growth names: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla, Broadcom, and Taiwan Semiconductor. Many of these appear in multiple ETFs, creating hidden overlap even if each fund looks diversified on its own. Because the data only uses ETF top‑10 holdings, the true overlap is probably higher than it looks. When the same giants drive several funds, one bad stretch for those companies can ripple across the whole portfolio more than the headline fund list suggests. In a concentrated leadership market that helps, but it amplifies single‑theme risk if leadership rotates.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
High
Data availability: 32%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 99%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
High
Data availability: 12%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
No data
Data availability: 0%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 100%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
High
Data availability: 99%

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 a high tilt toward value, high momentum, and high low‑volatility, with a very low size factor. Factors are like investing “ingredients” — characteristics such as cheapness (value), recent winners (momentum), or stability (low volatility) that studies link to long‑run returns. A very low size factor means the portfolio leans away from smaller companies and toward larger ones. High momentum tilt suggests performance has been driven by stocks that have recently done well, which often helps in strong uptrends but can sting in reversals. High low‑volatility tilt is interesting given the aggressive label; it implies a preference for relatively steadier names within equities. Because factor stats use this brief, hot run, their stability over time is highly uncertain.

Risk contribution Info

  • VanEck Semiconductor ETF
    Weight: 11.09%
    32.7%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Weight: 46.68%
    32.2%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
    Weight: 20.14%
    21.9%
  • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    Weight: 12.16%
    5.2%
  • Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
    Weight: 5.91%
    4.0%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 96.1%

Risk contribution measures how much each holding adds to the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. Here, the semiconductor ETF is only about 11% of assets but drives roughly 33% of total risk — nearly three times its share. The broad S&P 500 ETF, almost half the portfolio, contributes a similar share of risk, while the dividend and growth funds punch closer to their weights or below. That concentration means semiconductor moves can dominate short‑term experiences more than the dollar amount suggests. In practice, adjusting position sizes is how investors usually align risk with their comfort level, but any decision like that should consider more than just this very short data window.

Redundant positions Info

  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
    VanEck Semiconductor ETF
    High correlation

The correlation snapshot shows the semiconductor ETF and the international stock ETF moving almost identically over the observed period. Correlation describes how two investments move together on a scale from ‑1 to +1, where +1 means they move in lockstep. When assets are highly correlated, they tend to rise and fall at the same time, which limits diversification benefits. Here, even though one fund is sector‑specific and the other broad international, their recent behavior has been very similar. Over a full market cycle, you would normally expect more differentiation, so this tight pairing over seven months may be more about this particular tech‑led environment than a permanent relationship. Still, in sharp downturns, they are likely to struggle together.

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 efficient frontier chart, the current portfolio sits noticeably below the best achievable risk‑return trade‑off using the same holdings. The efficient frontier is like a curve showing the highest expected return for each level of risk; anything below it is not making full use of the ingredients available. The current Sharpe ratio — a measure of return per unit of risk — is strong but lower than the optimal mix’s Sharpe. That suggests reweighting the existing funds could, in theory, boost risk‑adjusted returns without adding new products. However, all these numbers lean heavily on the unusual, short seven‑month run, so any “optimal” mix may just be overfitting to recent winners rather than offering a robust long‑term blueprint.

Dividends Info

  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
  • VanEck Semiconductor ETF 0.20%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
  • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares 0.40%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.80%
  • Fidelity® Government Money Market Fund 2.00%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.37%

The overall dividend yield sits around 1.37%, pulled up by the dividend equity ETF and the international fund, and pulled down by growth and semiconductor exposure. Dividend yield is simply the annual cash payout as a percentage of price, and it can be an important part of total return, especially when markets move sideways. Here, income is clearly a secondary focus compared with growth. For someone relying on steady cash flow, this level would usually feel light, especially given the volatility of stocks. On the other hand, reinvesting modest dividends into a growth‑oriented, equity‑heavy portfolio can compound nicely over long horizons, though the short data history does not show how sustainable these yields or payout policies are.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • VanEck Semiconductor ETF 0.35%
  • Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares 0.10%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares 0.04%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.08%

The weighted ongoing cost, or TER, is about 0.08%, which is impressively low for a multi‑ETF portfolio. TER, or total expense ratio, is the annual fee charged by funds, quietly deducted in the background. Keeping this number low is one of the few things investors can control, and over decades, the savings compound in your favor. Here, most of the exposure sits in well‑known low‑cost index products, with only the semiconductor ETF charging noticeably more, yet still reasonable for a niche focus. With fees this low, performance will mainly be driven by market behavior and allocation choices, not by cost drag — a real strength and very much aligned with best practice in long‑term investing.

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