This portfolio has only about 1 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.
Open the Portfolio Builder Reshape your holdings and watch every metric recalculate live. Try it Roast mode 🔥

Hyper-concentrated memory bet hiding inside a pretend diversified tech comfort blanket

Report created on May 9, 2026

Risk profile Info

5/7
Growth
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

3/5
Moderately Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This “growth” portfolio is basically one giant science experiment with a thin layer of index respectability on top. Over a third is in a broad US market ETF, which looks sensible… until nearly 30% is hurled into a niche memory-theme ETF and another chunky slice into a few individual tech names. The result is fake diversification: it looks spread out in a list, but the real drivers are a couple of hyper-specific, volatile bets. With roughly a month of data, any precise metric here is more vibe than science, but the structure alone screams “one moonshot plus some camouflage” rather than a thoughtfully balanced growth mix.

Growth Info

The performance over this tiny one‑month window is cartoonish: $1,000 turning into $1,333 and a headline CAGR north of 1,700%. That’s not a portfolio; that’s a lottery ticket that happened to hit a good scratch-off. Meanwhile, max drawdown of only -2.27% looks almost gentle, especially versus the wild return numbers. Compared to US and global markets, the “outperformance” is huge, but with this short history, it’s like declaring a lifelong trend because you won one hand of poker. This tells more about recent luck in a narrow theme than any stable, repeatable return pattern.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection is trying its best with almost no real history, like predicting a 15‑year career from someone’s first week at work. Simulations land on a median outcome of around $2,465 from $1,000, with a wide “could be fine, could be weird” range. That 6.96% annualized expected return is basically the model saying, “Let’s assume markets act normal,” while the actual holdings are anything but normal. With a highly concentrated thematic chunk and recent explosive gains, the inputs are shaky. Past data is yesterday’s weather; here we barely have last hour’s forecast, yet the model still has to pretend it knows the next decade.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    72%
  • No data
    28%

On paper, 72% stocks and 28% “no data” looks like someone forgot to finish the homework. That missing slice might be perfectly ordinary, or it might be where the real chaos lives, but the system literally doesn’t know, and neither does this report. What is clear: the visible portion is overwhelmingly equities, and not the boring, steady type. For something labeled “growth,” that equity dominance fits, but it also means the portfolio lives and dies by market mood swings. With nearly a third in the mystery bucket, though, the asset-class picture is more foggy windshield than clear dashboard.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    36%
  • Telecommunications
    13%
  • Financials
    5%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    4%
  • Health Care
    4%
  • Industrials
    4%
  • Consumer Staples
    2%
  • Energy
    2%
  • Utilities
    1%
  • Real Estate
    1%
  • Basic Materials
    1%

Sector-wise, this is a tech and telecom obsession dressed up with token amounts of everything else. Technology alone sits at 36%, and when memory-heavy and chip-centric exposures are layered in, it’s basically a bet that the future is semiconductors all the way down. The remaining sectors are sprinkled on like garnish so the allocation pie chart doesn’t look embarrassing. Compared with broad indexes, this tilt is not subtle; it’s a full send. That concentration means when the tech cycle is kind, this portfolio looks like genius, and when it turns, it can wipe away those heroic charts with equal enthusiasm.

Regions Info

  • North America
    65%
  • Europe Developed
    7%

Geographically, it’s a classic “US first, ask questions later” setup: about 65% in North America and a tiny 7% cameo from developed Europe. The rest either doesn’t show up in the data or barely moves the needle. So despite the fancy ETFs and international-sounding names, the portfolio is heavily hinged on US market vibes and US policy, with just enough non-US exposure to say “global” with a straight face. It’s not alarmingly extreme, but it is very home-biased, and given the concentration elsewhere, there’s no real geographic balancing act happening here—just “America plus some accessories.”

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    41%
  • Large-cap
    21%
  • Mid-cap
    8%
  • Small-cap
    2%
  • Micro-cap
    1%

The market cap breakdown screams comfort with the giants: 41% mega-cap, 21% large-cap, and only small sprinkles of mid, small, and micro. So while the portfolio talks a big “innovation and memory” game, most of the muscle is coming from massive, established names. It’s like trying to be an edgy indie band but still signing with the biggest label. That reliance on big caps typically softens volatility, but here the smaller, spicier components are doing their best to overpower that stabilizing effect. The end result is a weird combo: blue-chip backbone with side bets trying very hard to dominate the personality.

True holdings Info

  • Microsoft Corporation
    14.12%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Direct holding 12.18%
  • Broadcom Inc
    9.49%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Direct holding 8.41%
  • SK Hynix Inc
    7.23%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Roundhill Memory ETF
  • Nebius Group N.V.
    6.92%
  • Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
    6.02%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Roundhill Memory ETF
  • First American Funds Inc. - Government Obligations Fund
    3.68%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Roundhill Memory ETF
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    2.89%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    2.71%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Direct holding 1.78%
  • Apple Inc
    2.64%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Kioxia Holdings Corporation
    1.70%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Roundhill Memory ETF
  • Top 10 total 57.41%

The look-through view basically exposes this as the Microsoft–Broadcom–memory universe show. Microsoft at 14.12% total exposure and Broadcom at 9.49% are not just “big positions”; they’re structural pillars. Add in Nebius, SK Hynix, Samsung, and Kioxia and the pattern is obvious: chips, memory, and more chips. You even get Microsoft and Broadcom twice—direct and via ETFs—so the overlap quietly turbocharges concentration. With only ETF top 10s used, this is likely an underestimate of how much the same names dominate. For a portfolio with several tickers, the true decision here is basically “do we go all-in on this very specific tech stack?”

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Low
Data availability: 36%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 72%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
High
Data availability: 7%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Very high
Data availability: 29%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 65%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 72%

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-wise, the portfolio is a momentum and quality junkie with an allergy to small size. Momentum at 75% says it’s chasing what’s been hot lately; quality at 87% means at least it’s doing that with companies that aren’t complete trash fires. Size exposure at a “very low” 13% is a strong tilt away from smaller stocks—it talks risky with themes but hangs out mostly with big, established players. Factor exposure is like checking the ingredients list: this recipe is “follow trends, but only among the honor-roll kids.” That can work in strong markets, but when trends reverse, momentum-heavy portfolios tend to discover gravity fast.

Risk contribution Info

  • Roundhill Memory ETF
    Weight: 27.87%
    59.0%
  • Nebius Group N.V.
    Weight: 6.92%
    12.8%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Weight: 34.05%
    12.4%
  • Broadcom Inc
    Weight: 8.41%
    7.4%
  • Microsoft Corporation
    Weight: 12.18%
    3.2%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 94.7%

Risk contribution here is where the mask fully slips. The Roundhill Memory ETF is 27.87% of weight but a ridiculous 58.99% of the total risk—over twice its share. That’s the loud, unstable roommate drowning out everyone else. Nebius at 6.92% weight but 12.78% risk is also punching way above its weight class. Meanwhile, that big, boring-looking Vanguard Total Market chunk is 34.05% of weight but only 12.37% of risk, doing quiet stabilizing labor while the thrill-seekers party. With the top three positions driving over 84% of portfolio risk, the rest of the holdings mainly exist to make the spreadsheet look diversified.

Redundant positions Info

  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    Invesco QQQ Trust
    High correlation
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    High correlation

The correlation picture is basically a mirror maze. QQQ and the Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF are almost clones, so holding both is like owning the same playlist in two apps. Vanguard S&P 500 and Vanguard Total Stock Market also move nearly identically; that’s redundancy, not diversification. High correlation means when trouble hits, these pieces don’t politely offset each other—they just go down together, holding hands. For a portfolio already concentrated by theme and factor, this extra layer of sameness makes the “multiple fund” setup feel more like a costume change than a real difference in underlying behavior.

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, this portfolio manages the rare feat of being both aggressive and inefficient. With a Sharpe of 11.04 but sitting a hefty 20.68 percentage points below the frontier at its current risk level, it’s essentially overpaying in volatility for the return it’s getting—on paper, anyway, using silly one-month data. The optimal mix of the same holdings would, in theory, deliver a better risk-adjusted profile with lower volatility. When the current setup is clearly below the best-possible curve using only these components, it’s a sign that the weights weren’t exactly the result of a math-driven optimization session.

Dividends Info

  • Broadcom Inc 0.60%
  • Meta Platforms Inc. 0.30%
  • Microsoft Corporation 0.80%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.40%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.00%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 0.54%

Dividends here are a cameo, not a feature. A total yield of about 0.54% is what you get when the line-up is mostly growthy, techy names that prefer buybacks and reinvestment over handing out cash. A couple of positions throw off modest income, but nothing that would pay more than a sad coffee habit. Dividend yield isn’t a moral virtue, but relying this little on income means the portfolio is almost entirely dependent on price appreciation. When prices cooperate, fine. When they don’t, there’s essentially no yield cushion to make holding through rough patches feel any less painful.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.02%

Costs are almost suspiciously low, with a total expense ratio around 0.02%. That’s “did you bribe Vanguard?” level cheap. The index ETFs are rock-bottom priced, and even the pricier products don’t drag the blended fee up much. So the drama in this portfolio is not fee-related; it’s entirely in what’s being held, not what it costs to hold it. This is basically a high-octane, concentrated bet executed at budget pricing—like buying race fuel at wholesale. You’re not losing money to the house on fees; if things go sideways, you’ll only have the actual investment choices to blame.

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