Portfolio report
Confused barbell of small value grit and mega cap tech worship pretending to be balanced
Report created on Sep 30, 2026The briefing
What stands out
The factor profile is basically a tug-of-war between value-tilted small caps and growthy mega-cap tech. Might be worth looking at which side actually drove past returns versus which side just added drama and extra volatility when things got bumpy.
The efficient frontier politely hints that the same five funds could deliver better risk-adjusted returns with different weights. If the ingredients are fine but the dish is meh, the issue is the recipe, not the grocery list.
Hidden overlap in big tech names means several funds are quietly doubling down on the same handful of stocks. Checking actual aggregate exposure to the top ten names would show whether this is conviction or just accidental hero worship.
Highlights from the assessment. Explore the analysis below for context and assumptions.
Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
4/5
The starting point
Positions
-
AV Avantis® International Small Cap Value ETF
AVDV - US0250728021 20.00% -
AV Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF
AVUV - US0250728773 20.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 20.00% -
VT Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
VTI - US9229087690 20.00% -
VX Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VXUS - US9219097683 20.00%
This “balanced” portfolio is five funds in a trench coat pretending to be one coherent idea. Two chunky small-cap value funds, two total-market blankets, and then a 20% side bet on the Nasdaq 100 just yelling “YOLO growth.” The weights are perfectly equal, which looks tidy but hides the fact that the total-market funds are already stuffed with the same big names as the Nasdaq slice. Structurally, this is basically: core index, plus redundant core index, plus concentrated growth rocket, plus small-value seasoning. It’s not chaos, but it’s definitely a bit of a Frankenstein: pieces that don’t quite know if they’re meant to be “smart” factor investing or just index hugging with a tech crush.
Growth
Historically, this thing has done very well: $1,000 turned into $2,450, with a 16.29% CAGR. That slightly edges out the US market and comfortably beats the global market, so the past decade’s style winds were blowing in the portfolio’s favor. But the price of admission was a -26% max drawdown and over two years from peak to new high, so “balanced” is doing a lot of marketing work here. Also, 90% of returns came from just 30 days, meaning the performance story is “don’t miss the handful of wild good days.” As always, past data is yesterday’s weather — useful, but no guarantee the next storm hits the same places.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection basically says: this portfolio probably grows, but with a personality. Simulations spit out a median of about $2,732 after 15 years from $1,000, with a huge possible range from “barely broke even” at $948 to “lottery-adjacent” at $7,548. Monte Carlo is just a fancy way of rolling the dice 1,000 times using past volatility and returns to imagine future paths. It’s not prophecy; it’s a stress test. The overall 7.92% annualized projection is decently optimistic, but the wide spread screams one thing: this is an equity-only ride, so outcomes are very dependent on whether future markets look more like the last decade’s party or its hangovers.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset allocation here is easy to summarize: stocks, and then more stocks, and then nothing but stocks. A 100% equity allocation in something labeled “balanced” is like calling a sports car “family-friendly” because it has two seats instead of one. There’s zero ballast from bonds, cash, or anything else that might act differently in a crash. That means when markets decide to jump off a cliff, this portfolio is base-jungee jumping right alongside them with no parachute from other asset classes. Great for long-term growth potential, sure, but the word “balanced” on the label is doing way more work than the actual holdings.
Sectors
- Technology 26%
- Financials 15%
- Consumer Discretionary 13%
- Industrials 13%
- Basic Materials 8%
- Energy 7%
- Telecommunications 6%
- Health Care 6%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Utilities 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector-wise, the portfolio is clearly tech-curious: 26% in technology, then a more modest spread across financials, consumer names, and industrials. It’s not an absurd tech addiction, but it’s definitely tilted toward the “we like shiny growth stories” end of the spectrum. The smaller weights in staples, utilities, and real estate mean there’s not much exposure to the boring, steady stuff that can cushion blows when optimism evaporates. Compared with broad market baselines, this looks like a slightly juiced-up growth-leaning mix hiding behind index wrappers. In a tech-led rally, that’s great; in a rotation toward defensive sectors, this portfolio is the one that forgot to bring a jacket.
Regions
- North America 63%
- Europe Developed 15%
- Japan 10%
- Asia Developed 4%
- Australasia 3%
- Asia Emerging 3%
- Africa/Middle East 2%
- Latin America 1%
Geographically, this is very “home sweet home”: 63% in North America and the rest scattered thinly across everywhere else. It’s not an outrageous home bias, but it’s solidly “US and friends” rather than truly global. Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world are basically supporting characters in the movie of this portfolio. That’s fine when North America is the hero of the story, but if other regions drive future growth, the portfolio is mostly watching from the sidelines. The international exposure is there just enough to claim diversification, but not enough to escape the gravitational pull of US market behavior when things get rough.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 29%
- Mid-cap 21%
- Small-cap 19%
- Large-cap 18%
- Micro-cap 12%
The market cap mix is where the split personality really shows: 29% mega-cap plus big chunks in mid, small, and even micro-caps. On paper, that looks like a nice barbell between giants and scrappy underdogs. In practice, it’s more like putting blue-chip titans and sketchy small names in the same group project and hoping for “synergy.” The heavy small and micro exposure injects extra volatility that the mega caps don’t fully offset, especially in down markets when the little guys tend to get tossed out first. So while this looks broadly diversified by size, it’s quietly loading more risk into the fringes than a plain vanilla index would.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 3.01%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AA Apple Inc. 2.76%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 2.17%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.49%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 1.31%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.15%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.01%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 0.99%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
TS Tesla Inc 0.87%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AM Advanced Micro Devices Inc 0.86%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Top 10 total 15.62%
The look-through holdings basically scream “we love the Magnificent Whatever-Number-We’re-On-Now.” NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla, AMD — they’re all here, often appearing multiple times across your different funds. With only top-10 ETF data, overlap is actually understated, so the true concentration in these names is higher than shown. That means the portfolio pretends to be five distinct funds, yet a handful of tech megacaps are steering way more of the bus than the fund list suggests. That’s the classic hidden overlap problem: diversification by ticker count, not by actual economic exposure, with the same crowd of giants holding VIP passes everywhere.
Factors
Factor-wise, this portfolio is clearly flirting with value: a 61% value exposure, while everything else sits suspiciously close to neutral. Factor exposure is just the hidden recipe behind performance — value, size, momentum, etc. are the “flavors” baked into the holdings. Here, the value tilt from the Avantis funds is wrestling with the mega-cap growth lean from the Nasdaq 100 slice. The result is a bit schizophrenic: one foot in cheap, unloved stocks, the other firmly in high-flying tech darlings. That mixed messaging can mean the portfolio sometimes cancels itself out, missing the full benefits of either pure value or pure growth when one style really dominates.
Risk contribution
-
Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF
Weight: 20.00% 22.9% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 20.00% 22.8% -
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 20.00% 19.1% -
Avantis® International Small Cap Value ETF
Weight: 20.00% 18.0% -
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 20.00% 17.3%
Risk contribution shows who’s actually shaking the portfolio, and surprise: the two “spicy” funds are doing more than their share. The US small-cap value ETF and the Nasdaq 100 ETF each weigh 20% but contribute almost 23% of the total risk. Risk contribution is basically “who’s causing the mood swings,” and these two are the loudest guests at the party. The broader Vanguard funds are more polite, contributing slightly less risk than their weight. So even with equal 20% slices, this isn’t an equal partnership; a few positions are punching above their weight in volatility, making the portfolio more sensitive to US small caps and mega-cap growth than the superficial symmetry suggests.
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 chart is basically calling this portfolio “good, but leaving free points on the table.” At the current risk level, it sits about 1.63 percentage points below the frontier, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.75 versus 1.02 for the optimal mix using the same ingredients. Sharpe ratio is just return per unit of risk — miles per gallon for your volatility. Being below the frontier means this setup isn’t using its holdings efficiently; a simple reweighting of the exact same funds could deliver more return for the same risk, or less risk for the same return. It’s like driving a decent car in first gear on the highway: workable, but hardly optimal.
Dividends
- Avantis® International Small Cap Value ETF 3.20%
- Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 1.30%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.10%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.30%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.66%
The dividend picture is modest: a 1.66% overall yield, dragged down by the Nasdaq-heavy growth chunk. One Avantis fund throws off a respectable yield, but the tech tilt basically looks at income and says, “Nah, we’re here for capital gains.” Yield isn’t everything, but at this level it’s not exactly paying investors to wait. This is a growth-first design with a sprinkling of income rather than a meaningful cash-flow engine. If dividends were meant to be a stabilizing feature, they’re more of a side character: visible, vaguely helpful, but not doing much to soften the ride when prices are swinging around.
Ongoing product costs
- Avantis® International Small Cap Value ETF 0.36%
- Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 0.25%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
- Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.17%
Costs are the one area where this portfolio behaves like it reads the instructions: a blended TER of 0.17% is perfectly reasonable. The Avantis funds are the pricier characters in the cast, but not outrageously so for active-ish, factor-tilted products. The ultra-cheap Vanguard ETFs pull the average back down, and the Nasdaq fund is middle-of-the-road. In other words, you’re not lighting money on fire in fees, but you’re not flying economy at rock-bottom index prices either. Think “premium economy” price tag for a portfolio that’s still figuring out whether it wants to be a clever factor strategy or just a prettier market tracker.
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