The risk profile, derived from past market volatility, reflects the level of risk the portfolio is exposed to. This assessment helps align your investments with your financial goals and comfort with market fluctuations.
The diversification assessment evaluates the spread of investments across asset classes, regions, and sectors. This ensures a balanced mix, reducing risk and maximizing returns by not concentrating in any single area.
The portfolio is a pure equity mix of five broad and factor-tilted ETFs, with no bonds or alternatives. About a third goes to a total US market fund, roughly a fifth to a total international fund, and the rest leans into small-cap value and a dedicated US quality strategy. This structure creates a core-and-satellite setup: broad “core” index funds for stability and more focused “satellite” factor funds for return enhancement. That’s a solid, intentional design for growth. The main takeaway is that volatility will be higher than a blended stock/bond mix, but the diversification across size, style, and regions helps keep risk more controlled than a single-factor or single-country portfolio.
From late 2019 to early 2026, $1,000 grew to about $2,110, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.5%. CAGR is the smoothed yearly growth rate, like your average speed over a long road trip. This slightly lagged the US market but beat the global market by a healthy margin, showing that the tilts have kept pace with strong domestic performance while adding diversification. The max drawdown of about -37% was deeper than the benchmarks’ roughly -34%, which is normal for an all-stock, factor-tilted mix. The key message: return has been strong, but large temporary drops are part of the deal, and past results don’t guarantee similar future patterns.
All assets are in stocks, with zero allocation to bonds, cash, or alternatives. That’s consistent with a “growth” risk profile and a long time horizon, where maximizing expected return takes priority over smoothing short-term volatility. Compared with typical balanced portfolios that might hold 30–60% bonds, this setup will feel more like a roller coaster, especially in sharp market declines. The positive side is there’s no drag from low-yielding assets. The main implication: this structure suits someone who does not need near-term withdrawals and can mentally and financially tolerate big market drops without feeling forced to sell at bad times.
Sector exposure is fairly well balanced, with technology the largest slice around 20%, followed by financials and industrials at 16% each, and a spread across consumer, health care, materials, telecom, energy, real estate, and utilities. This looks similar to diversified equity benchmarks and avoids extreme concentration in a single theme. That’s helpful because sector cycles can be brutal; for example, tech-heavy portfolios can get hit hard when interest rates rise or valuations reset. Here, sector diversification adds another buffer alongside size and style tilts. It means returns will still depend on the global economy but won’t be dominated by any one industry narrative.
Geographically, about two-thirds of exposure is in North America, with the rest spread across Europe, Japan, developed Asia, emerging Asia, Australasia, Africa/Middle East, and Latin America. That’s a meaningful global footprint, though still somewhat US-tilted relative to a strict world market allocation. This tilt is common and has been beneficial in the last decade thanks to US outperformance. The diversification into other regions helps reduce the risk of any single economy driving all results. The trade-off: performance may lag a pure US portfolio during strong domestic bull markets but can hold up better if leadership rotates to other parts of the world.
The portfolio spans the full market-cap spectrum: roughly a quarter each in mega and mid caps, just over a fifth in large caps, and a sizable allocation to small and even micro caps. This is more tilted toward smaller companies than a typical global index, which is dominated by mega caps. Smaller firms tend to be more volatile but historically have offered higher long-term return potential. That fits the growth orientation nicely. The key implication is that short-term swings and tracking error versus broad benchmarks will be higher, but you’re deliberately tapping into different parts of the market that behave differently across cycles.
Looking through the ETFs, many of the largest positions are familiar mega-cap names like Apple, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Tesla. These appear mainly via the broad US and international index funds, so there is some overlap, but it’s modest in total weight. Hidden concentration is therefore present but not extreme. Since only ETF top-10 holdings are captured, overlap in smaller positions is likely higher than shown. This setup is fairly typical and aligns with major market indices. The practical angle: you’re still getting broad market leadership exposure, but the portfolio doesn’t overly hinge on any single company’s fate.
Factor exposure is a standout feature. There are strong tilts toward value, size (smaller companies), and quality, with moderate momentum and low-volatility exposure. Factor investing targets traits that research has linked to long-run return premia, like cheaper valuations (value) or strong profitability and balance sheets (quality). This portfolio leans hard into those drivers rather than hugging the market. That can be powerful but also means there will be stretches where these styles underperform broad indices. The upside: when value, small caps, or quality come into favor, returns can accelerate. The trade-off is patience through inevitable periods when these factors lag.
Risk contribution shows how much each ETF actually drives the portfolio’s ups and downs, which can differ from simple weights. Here, the US total market fund is 35% of the portfolio and contributes about 35% of the risk, so it behaves as expected. The small-cap value fund at 15% weight contributes almost 18% of risk, slightly “louder” than its size. The international fund contributes a bit less risk than its weight, offering some diversification. With the top three holdings driving about 73% of total risk, concentration is meaningful but not extreme. Rebalancing occasionally can keep risk aligned with the intended structure.
Correlation measures how often assets move together; a value near 1 means they tend to rise and fall in sync. The US small-cap value ETF and the US quality factor ETF are flagged as highly correlated, which makes sense since both focus on US equities and share overlapping drivers. High correlation reduces diversification benefits, especially during sharp market selloffs when many stocks drop together. The broader portfolio still gets some risk reduction from mixing US and international holdings and blending factors, but there are limits. The main takeaway: diversification is solid within equities, but correlation in crises will still feel like “everything is going down.”
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 risk–return chart, the current portfolio has an expected return of 13.65% with volatility of 19.81%, giving a Sharpe ratio of 0.59. Sharpe ratio compares return to risk, like miles per gallon for your car. The optimal mix of the same holdings improves the Sharpe to 0.75, with similar or slightly lower risk and higher return; a same-risk version could lift expected return to about 15.3%. That means the current allocation sits below the efficient frontier. The good news: you don’t need new products to improve efficiency. Simply reweighting among these five ETFs could meaningfully enhance the balance between risk and return.
The overall dividend yield sits around 1.99%, combining higher-yield international value exposure with lower-yield US and quality holdings. Dividends are the cash payouts companies make to shareholders, which can provide a steady return component on top of price changes. For a growth-leaning equity mix, a roughly 2% yield is quite reasonable and compares well with many broad equity benchmarks. This level is not high enough to be an income-focused strategy but does add a modest buffer in flat or modestly down markets. Over time, reinvested dividends can significantly boost total returns, especially when combined with strong underlying earnings growth.
The weighted total expense ratio (TER) of about 0.10% is impressively low for a factor-aware, globally diversified equity portfolio. TER is the annual fee charged by funds, and even small differences compound over decades, much like interest on a loan. The mix leans heavily on low-cost Vanguard index funds, with only a slightly higher fee for the specialized international small-cap value ETF. This alignment with cost-efficient vehicles is a real strength and supports better long-term performance versus higher-fee strategies. Staying disciplined on costs is one of the few things an investor fully controls, and here that box is checked very well.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
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