Two index funds pretending to be diversified while secretly worshipping the same tech gods
Report created on Jun 29, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 70.00% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 30.00%
Structurally this “portfolio” is basically one decision in a trench coat. Seventy percent goes straight into a concentrated growth engine, with the other thirty percent in a broad US index that still overlaps heavily with the first one. It looks like diversification but acts more like turning one big bet into two slightly different wrappers. When both core pieces are highly correlated and dominated by similar giants, the overall mix is more cosmetic than strategic. On paper it’s two funds; in practice, it’s one aggressive growth profile with a small dose of “also US large caps” sprinkled on top for emotional comfort, not real differentiation.
Growth
Historically the portfolio absolutely ripped, turning $1,000 into $2,420 with a 16.83% CAGR. That’s beating both the US and global markets, so the rear-view mirror looks fantastic. The catch: it also took a -31.77% dive, deeper than either benchmark. CAGR, or compound annual growth rate, is like your average speed over a chaotic road trip; the drawdown is the part where everyone screams in the car. Here, extra returns came with extra pain. Past data is basically yesterday’s weather report: nice to know it was sunny, but it doesn’t stop tomorrow’s storm.
Projection
The Monte Carlo simulation says the future is a casino with better lighting. Monte Carlo basically runs thousands of “what if” market paths and checks where your $1,000 lands after 15 years. Median outcome around $2,760 sounds fine until noticing the possible range: from about $955 (basically going nowhere for 15 years) up to $7,760. That spread is what concentrated growth risk looks like. An average simulated return of 7.89% is solid, but the fact that one in four paths ends with a loss in real terms is the tax you pay for riding a roller coaster instead of a tram.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset allocation here is easy: it’s all stocks, all the time. Zero bonds, zero cash buffer, zero anything else. That’s like building a house entirely out of glass because it looks good in the sun and assuming storms are just a rumor. Stocks are where the growth comes from, but putting 100% here means no natural shock absorbers if markets decide to throw a tantrum. There’s no ballast, no stabilizer, just pure exposure to equity markets. It’s a growth portfolio in the most literal “hope you like volatility” sense, not a mix with actual safety layers.
Sectors
- Technology 52%
- Telecommunications 13%
- Consumer Discretionary 11%
- Consumer Staples 6%
- Health Care 5%
- Industrials 4%
- Financials 4%
- Utilities 2%
- Energy 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector exposure screams one thing: tech addiction. Over half the portfolio is in technology, with telecoms and consumer discretionary piled on for even more “things that break when optimism fades.” The rest of the sectors get leftover scraps like a pity invite. This isn’t a balanced economic snapshot; it’s a very specific bet that high-growth, innovation-heavy firms will keep carrying the world on their backs. When tech has a good year, this looks genius. When tech has a bad year, this looks like someone forgot other sectors exist. The sector profile is bold, but subtle it is not.
Regions
- North America 99%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geographically this is “America or nothing.” Roughly 99% lives in North America, with Europe showing up as a rounding error. That’s less “global investing” and more “home country tunnel vision.” The global economy is broader than one region’s stock market, but this portfolio behaves as if the rest of the world is an optional DLC pack. This kind of localization can work when the domestic market leads, but it also means every political, regulatory, or economic wobble in one region hits almost the entire portfolio at once. No foreign shock absorbers, just one big regional bet.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 51%
- Large-cap 36%
- Mid-cap 13%
Market cap exposure is basically “worship the giants.” Over half is in mega-caps, another big chunk in large-caps, and mid-caps get a modest supporting role. Small companies might as well not exist here. That means the portfolio mostly dances to the tune of a few massive corporations that already dominate indexes, headlines, and everyone’s watchlists. When those mega-caps run, everything looks amazing; when they stall, the whole portfolio feels heavy. It’s like a team made of only superstars: very powerful, but also very dependent on a few names staying invincible forever.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 8.06%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 7.08%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 4.86%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 4.19%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 4.04%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 3.41%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 3.07%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 3.03%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 2.85%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Advanced Micro Devices Inc 2.51%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Top 10 total 43.09%
The look-through holdings are basically a fan club for the same small circle of mega-tech heroes. NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (twice, just for fun), Tesla, AMD — they all pop up through both ETFs. That overlap is hidden concentration: it pretends to be diversified across funds while funneling exposure into the exact same names. And this is only based on top-10 ETF holdings, so the real overlap is probably worse. Owning both funds is less “two angles on the market” and more “extra copies of the same poster taped all over the bedroom wall.”
Factors
Factor-wise, this thing loudly avoids value, size, and yield. Low value exposure means it steers clear of cheap-looking stocks; low size means it barely touches smaller companies; low yield means it doesn’t care much about income. Factor exposure is like checking the ingredient list instead of trusting the label — this one is all about growth and price momentum in big, flashy names. Quality and low volatility sit around neutral, so it’s not completely reckless, but the recipe is still “pay up for big, popular winners and hope they keep winning.” Subtle factor engineering? Not really.
Risk contribution
-
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 70.00% 76.4% -
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 30.00% 23.6%
Risk contribution exposes who’s actually driving the chaos, and the 70% NASDAQ-heavy ETF is absolutely hogging the spotlight — about 76% of total risk, despite its weight. Risk contribution is basically asking, “Who’s shaking the portfolio the hardest?” Here, one holding is doing most of the shaking, with the S&P 500 ETF playing the calm backup band. That imbalance means that whatever happens to the growth-heavy chunk — good or bad — dominates the overall experience. Position count says two funds, but risk says there’s one real driver and one sidekick along for the ride.
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 actually lands near the curve, which is the one area where it behaves like it knows what it’s doing. The Sharpe ratio — a simple measure of return per unit of risk — isn’t the best possible with these two funds, but it’s not embarrassingly off, either. The optimal and minimum-variance portfolios both show slightly lower risk with similar return, so the current mix is leaning more “spicy” than necessary. Still, given how concentrated everything else is, being this close to efficient is almost suspiciously competent.
Dividends
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.61%
Dividend yield at 0.61% is basically pocket lint. This setup clearly doesn’t care about cash payouts; it wants reinvested growth and price appreciation. Dividends can act like a slow, boring paycheck from your investments, but here the check is tiny and irregular. That’s fine if the goal is pure growth, but it does mean the portfolio relies almost entirely on market mood swings for progress. There’s no meaningful built-in income stream to soften rough patches; it’s more “live by the chart, die by the chart” than “collect coupons while you wait.”
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.11%
Costs are the one area where this portfolio doesn’t trip over itself. A blended TER of 0.11% is nice and lean — closer to “wholesale” than “tourist trap.” TER, or total expense ratio, is the annual fee skimmed by the funds for existing. Here, the skimming is reasonably gentle. Still, paying two managers to mostly own the same mega-cap names is a bit like tipping two waiters for bringing the same dish. At least the tip is small. Fees aren’t the villain in this story; the concentration and overlap do that job just fine on their own.
What next?
Ready to invest in this portfolio?
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
Create your own report?
Join our community!
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