Highly concentrated aggressive growth portfolio with strong tech focus and standout historical performance
Report created on Apr 15, 2026Risk profile
- Secure Speculative
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.
Diversification profile
- Focused Diversified
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.
Positions
-
EO Eos Energy Enterprises Inc
EOSE - US29415C1018 17.36% -
GO Alphabet Inc Class A
GOOGL - US02079K3059 15.11% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 12.65% -
NV NVIDIA Corporation
NVDA - US67066G1040 11.82% -
AM Advanced Micro Devices Inc
AMD - US0079031078 9.29% -
AV Broadcom Inc
AVGO - US11135F1012 7.55% -
AM Amazon.com Inc
AMZN - US0231351067 7.48% -
AN Arista Networks
ANET - US0404132054 6.98% -
TT Tetra Technologies Inc
TTI - US88162F1057 5.89% -
BA Alibaba Group Holding Ltd
BABA - US01609W1027 3.37% -
TS Tesla Inc
TSLA - US88160R1014 2.50%
The portfolio is made up entirely of individual stocks plus one broad US ETF, with a few names dominating. Eos Energy alone is over 17%, while Alphabet, NVIDIA, AMD, Amazon, Broadcom, and Arista together take up most of the remaining space. This kind of tight concentration can supercharge gains when the chosen names do well, but it also makes the ride much bumpier. A more balanced mix usually spreads risk across many businesses and styles, while this setup leans heavily on a small group of high-growth companies and one low-cost index core.
Growth
Historically, performance has been excellent: $1,000 grew to about $7,412, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of roughly 41%. CAGR is like your “average speed” per year over the whole journey. That massively beat both US and global markets, which were in the mid-teens. The tradeoff was a max drawdown of about -38%, meaning the portfolio once fell that far from a prior peak. This is deeper than the benchmarks’ drops, showing that the big upside came with sharper downside swings. Past results are impressive but never guarantee the next decade will look similar.
Projection
The Monte Carlo simulation shows many possible future paths by remixing historical returns in thousands of ways. Think of it as rolling the dice on market conditions over and over to see a range of outcomes, not one precise forecast. Over 15 years, the median path grows $1,000 to about $2,733, with a wide “likely” band from roughly $1,798 to $4,107 and extreme outcomes stretching from just under break-even to very strong gains. The average simulated annual return is about 8%, much lower than the historical 41%, reminding you that the past boom is unlikely to repeat indefinitely.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All investments here are in stocks, with zero allocation to bonds, cash substitutes, or alternative assets. Stocks are historically the main growth engine, but they also swing more day to day and can have deep multi-year drawdowns. A 100% stock allocation makes sense only for investors who can sit through large temporary losses without panicking. Adding other asset classes isn’t about chasing returns; it’s mostly about smoothing the ride. As things stand, this structure prioritizes long-term growth potential over steadier short-term behavior, which aligns with the “aggressive” classification.
Sectors
- Technology 40%
- Industrials 24%
- Telecommunications 16%
- Consumer Discretionary 15%
- Financials 2%
- Health Care 1%
- Consumer Staples 1%
Sector-wise, the portfolio leans heavily into technology-related areas, with tech and closely linked industries forming the core. Industrials and telecommunications also show up meaningfully, while more defensive areas like consumer staples and health care are tiny. In practice, this means outcomes are strongly tied to how growth-oriented, innovation-driven businesses perform relative to the broader market. Tech-heavy portfolios can do very well during periods of rapid innovation or falling interest rates, but they often feel sharper drawdowns when sentiment turns, regulation bites, or borrowing costs rise.
Regions
- North America 97%
- Asia Developed 3%
Geographic exposure is overwhelmingly tilted to North America at about 97%, with only a small slice in developed Asia. This makes the portfolio strongly tied to the US economy, US policy, and the US dollar. That’s not unusual for many investors, and US markets have been strong in recent years, so alignment with standard benchmarks is generally good here. The flip side is limited exposure to other major economies and currencies, which can sometimes zig when the US zags. A global mix can help diversify country-specific risks that might not be obvious in everyday headlines.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 63%
- Mid-cap 20%
- Large-cap 11%
- Small-cap 6%
Most holdings are very large companies, with a strong bias toward mega-cap and large-cap stocks and only a small piece in mid- and small-caps. Bigger companies tend to be more established, with deeper resources and more analyst coverage, which can bring some stability compared with tiny, speculative names. At the same time, small- and mid-cap stocks sometimes drive outsized returns in different parts of the cycle. Overall, this size mix leans toward the “main stage” of the market rather than the fringes, while still including a few smaller, potentially more explosive names.
True holdings
-
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
-
-
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 89.67%
Looking through the ETF reveals that several big stocks appear twice: you hold Alphabet, NVIDIA, Amazon, Broadcom, and Tesla directly and again inside the S&P 500 ETF. This “overlap” creates hidden concentration because those names are larger in your real exposure than they appear from the surface weights. Top-10 ETF data only captures part of the overlap, so the true duplication is likely higher. Overlapping holdings can be fine if you truly want extra exposure to those names, but it reduces the diversification benefit the ETF would otherwise provide.
Factors
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 mild tilts away from value, size, yield, and low volatility, with neutral scores on momentum and quality. Factors are like personality traits of stocks — for example, value means cheaper relative to fundamentals, and low volatility means smoother price moves. Here, low scores in value and yield suggest a focus on growth and reinvestment over dividends and bargain pricing. Low size and low volatility scores reflect a preference for larger, more established firms rather than small, choppy names. Neutral momentum and quality indicate behavior broadly similar to the market on those traits.
Risk contribution
-
Eos Energy Enterprises Inc
Weight: 17.36% 42.5% -
NVIDIA Corporation
Weight: 11.82% 11.9% -
Advanced Micro Devices Inc
Weight: 9.29% 9.4% -
Alphabet Inc Class A
Weight: 15.11% 7.9% -
Broadcom Inc
Weight: 7.55% 5.6% - Top 5 risk contribution 77.1%
Risk contribution highlights that Eos Energy is the main driver of the portfolio’s ups and downs. Despite being 17% by weight, it contributes over 42% of total risk — more than double its share. Risk contribution measures how much each holding adds to overall volatility, not just how big it is. By contrast, heavyweights like Alphabet and Broadcom contribute less risk than their sizes might suggest. When a single name dominates risk like this, the overall outcome is heavily tied to that company’s story. Adjusting sizing can help line up risk contribution more closely with intended conviction.
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 efficient frontier analysis shows the current mix is significantly below the best achievable risk/return balance using these same holdings. The current Sharpe ratio — a measure of return per unit of risk — is about 1.08, while the optimal mix reaches around 1.66 at a similar volatility level. Being below the frontier means you’re taking on roughly the same risk as an alternative combination of your existing positions but getting less expected return for it. Reweighting the current names, without adding anything new, could improve efficiency and bring the portfolio closer to that frontier.
Dividends
- Broadcom Inc 0.70%
- Alibaba Group Holding Ltd 1.50%
- Alphabet Inc Class A 0.30%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.29%
Dividend yield is very low overall at about 0.29%, even though a few holdings like Alibaba, Broadcom, and the S&P 500 ETF do pay modest dividends. Dividends are cash payments from companies and can provide steady income, but high-growth businesses often reinvest profits instead of paying them out. For someone focused on long-term capital growth rather than current income, a low yield isn’t a problem and can even reflect a deliberate focus on reinvestment. For income-focused investors, though, this setup would be less appealing and might not match their need for regular cash flow.
Ongoing product costs
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
Costs are a strong positive point. The only fund, the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, has an expense ratio of 0.03%, which is extremely low by industry standards. Expense ratios are like a small annual “service fee” taken out of your investment. Lower fees mean more of the portfolio’s return stays in your pocket, especially when compounded over many years. Because the rest of the holdings are individual stocks with no ongoing fund fees, overall structural costs are impressively low. This is a real strength and helps support better long-term performance compared with higher-fee setups.
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