Concentrated US growth portfolio focused on technology and industrial innovation with historically strong but bumpy returns
Report created on May 2, 2026Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
VT Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
VTI - US9229087690 50.00% -
AI First Trust RBA American Industrial RenaissanceTM ETF
AIRR - US33738R7044 12.50% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 12.50% -
SO Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF
SOXQ - US46138G6153 12.50% -
XA SPDR® S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF
XAR - US78464A6313 12.50%
This portfolio is fully invested in US-focused stock ETFs, with half in a broad total US market fund and the other half split evenly across four more specialized themes: industrial renaissance, NASDAQ 100, semiconductors, and aerospace and defense. So structurally, there’s one big core holding plus four sizable “satellites.” That core-satellite setup matters because the core helps keep exposure broad, while the satellites push the portfolio toward specific growth and innovation areas. Overall, this is a concentrated equity growth structure rather than a balanced mix across stocks, bonds, and cash. That means more sensitivity to stock market cycles, but also more direct participation when growth-oriented areas perform strongly.
Growth
From mid-2021 to May 2026, $1,000 grew to about $2,177, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.31%. CAGR is like the portfolio’s average yearly “speed” over the whole trip, smoothing out bumps. Over the same period, the US market grew at 12.99% and the global market at 10.45%, so this portfolio outpaced both by a meaningful margin. The trade-off was a max drawdown of -27.49%, a deeper drop than the US market but similar to global equities. It took about 11 months to hit the bottom and 9 months to recover. Only 21 days delivered 90% of returns, highlighting how missing a few strong days could have changed the experience a lot.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection uses thousands of simulated paths, based on historical return and volatility patterns, to estimate a range of future outcomes. Think of it as re-running history 1,000 different ways with the same “personality” of the portfolio. Over 15 years, the median outcome grows $1,000 to about $2,815, equivalent to an annualized 8.05% across all simulations. The “likely” middle band (25th–75th percentile) runs from roughly $1,853 to $4,187, while more extreme but still plausible paths stretch from about $1,032 to $7,434. These are not promises; they’re statistical scenarios based on past behavior. Actual results can land outside these ranges, especially if future markets differ from the historical sample.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of this portfolio is in stocks, with 0% in bonds, cash, or alternatives. Asset classes are broad buckets like stocks, bonds, and real estate that tend to behave differently at various points in the economic cycle. A 100% equity allocation typically brings higher long-term growth potential but also larger short‑term swings than a portfolio that blends in more stable assets. Compared with many diversified reference mixes, this is clearly on the growth and riskier side. The upside is direct participation in equity market gains; the trade-off is that there’s no built-in buffer from fixed income or cash if stock markets go through prolonged weak periods.
Sectors
- Technology 35%
- Industrials 29%
- Financials 7%
- Telecommunications 7%
- Consumer Discretionary 7%
- Health Care 6%
- Consumer Staples 3%
- Energy 2%
- Utilities 1%
- Real Estate 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
Sector-wise, technology is the largest exposure at about 35%, with industrials close behind at 29%. Other sectors like financials, telecom, consumer discretionary, health care, and consumer staples show up in smaller single-digit slices, and remaining sectors are only minor parts. This creates a clear tilt toward innovation-heavy and economically sensitive areas rather than a fully even spread across the economy. Tech-heavy and industrial-tilted portfolios can benefit when innovation, manufacturing, and capital spending are strong, but they may feel more impact when interest rates rise or when economic growth slows. The alignment of smaller sectors to broad benchmarks looks reasonable, but leadership here clearly comes from tech and industrial themes.
Regions
- North America 98%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geographically, the portfolio is overwhelmingly concentrated in North America at 98%, with only about 1% in developed Europe and negligible exposure elsewhere. Geography matters because different regions experience distinct economic cycles, currencies, and policy environments. Compared with global market benchmarks, which allocate a large share outside the US, this portfolio is heavily home-biased toward the American market. That has worked well during periods when US companies, especially in tech and innovation, outperformed. The flip side is that returns and risks are closely tied to a single region’s economic and political landscape, with limited diversification from other parts of the world.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 30%
- Large-cap 29%
- Mid-cap 22%
- Small-cap 15%
- Micro-cap 3%
By market capitalization, there’s a broad mix: around 30% in mega‑caps, 29% in large‑caps, 22% in mid‑caps, 15% in small‑caps, and 3% in micro‑caps. Market cap refers to company size; mega- and large-caps are established giants, while small- and micro‑caps tend to be more nimble but volatile. This spread means the portfolio doesn’t rely solely on the largest household names, which can help capture different stages of company growth. However, the inclusion of meaningful small and micro‑cap exposure introduces more sensitivity to economic surprises and liquidity conditions. Relative to a typical large‑cap-only index, this mix leans more into the full size spectrum of the equity market.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 5.78%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AA Apple Inc 3.83%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 2.88%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.87%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.22%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.78%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.47%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.44%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.25%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 0.99%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF
- Top 10 total 24.51%
Looking through ETF top-10 holdings, a few names show notable concentration: NVIDIA at about 5.78%, Apple at 3.83%, Microsoft at 2.88%, and several other major tech and internet companies between roughly 1% and 3%. These appear across multiple ETFs, creating overlap that isn’t obvious from the fund list alone. Overlap matters because if the same company pops up in several funds, its influence on the portfolio’s ups and downs is larger than any single ETF weight suggests. Coverage here is about 38% of the portfolio, and only top‑10 ETF holdings are used, so actual overlap is likely higher than shown. The clear takeaway is a strong underlying tilt toward leading US mega‑cap growth names.
Factors
Factor exposure here is reasonably balanced, with one standout: size at 61%, indicating a mild tilt toward smaller companies versus a purely large‑cap market. Factors are like the underlying “traits” of stocks—such as value, momentum, or quality—that research has linked to long-run return differences. A higher size score means more exposure to mid- and small‑caps, which historically have shown higher potential returns but choppier paths. Value, momentum, quality, low volatility, and yield all sit around neutral, with yield slightly low at 40%, consistent with a growth-tilted equity portfolio that emphasizes capital appreciation over income. Overall, factor positioning suggests broad market-like behavior, with an extra dose of smaller-company dynamism.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 50.00% 42.3% -
Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF
Weight: 12.50% 19.8% -
First Trust RBA American Industrial RenaissanceTM ETF
Weight: 12.50% 13.3% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 12.50% 13.0% -
SPDR® S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF
Weight: 12.50% 11.6%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall volatility, which can differ from its simple weight. The broad US market ETF is 50% of the portfolio but contributes about 42% of risk, so it’s actually a bit less volatile than its size might suggest. The semiconductor ETF stands out: at 12.5% weight, it contributes nearly 19.8% of total risk, meaning each dollar there swings more than average. The industrial, NASDAQ 100, and aerospace & defense ETFs each contribute risk roughly in line with their weights. With the top three positions driving about 75% of portfolio risk, the overall risk profile is meaningfully shaped by the broad market and semiconductor exposures.
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.
The risk–return chart compares this portfolio with an “efficient frontier” built only from the existing holdings. The Sharpe ratio—return minus the risk-free rate divided by volatility—measures risk-adjusted performance. The current portfolio’s Sharpe is 0.68, slightly above the minimum-variance mix (0.67) but below the max-Sharpe “optimal” portfolio at 1.02. At roughly 20.3% volatility, the current allocation sits about 1.56 percentage points below the efficient frontier, meaning that, based on history, a different combination of these same ETFs could have delivered more return for similar risk. That doesn’t say anything about the future, but it does show the allocation is growth-oriented rather than mathematically “tuned” for historical risk efficiency.
Dividends
- First Trust RBA American Industrial RenaissanceTM ETF 0.10%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF 0.30%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.10%
- SPDR® S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF 0.30%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.70%
The portfolio’s overall dividend yield is around 0.70%, with the total market ETF at 1.10% and the more specialized funds generally at or below 0.50%. Dividend yield is the annual cash payout as a percentage of price—useful for understanding how much of total return might come from income versus price changes. Here, the income component is modest; most of the historical and projected return comes from capital growth rather than dividends. That aligns with the focus on growth sectors and innovation themes, where companies often reinvest earnings instead of paying high dividends. For someone tracking income expectations, this profile behaves more like a growth engine than a cash-flow generator.
Ongoing product costs
- First Trust RBA American Industrial RenaissanceTM ETF 0.70%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF 0.19%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
- SPDR® S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF 0.35%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.19%
The weighted average expense ratio (Total TER) is about 0.19% per year. TER is the ongoing fund fee, taken inside each ETF, so you don’t see a separate charge but it slightly reduces returns over time. The core Vanguard ETF is very low-cost at 0.03%, while the specialized satellites range from 0.15% to 0.70%, with the industrial renaissance ETF at the high end. Overall, this blended cost level is quite competitive for a portfolio that combines a cheap core with targeted thematic exposures. Lower ongoing costs mean more of any future return stays in the portfolio, and over many years even a few tenths of a percent can compound into a noticeable difference.
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!
Compare your holdings
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.
Help us improve Insightfolio
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey