Concentrated US stock portfolio with strong tech tilt balanced by cash and defensive sector exposure
Report created on Aug 28, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 40.00% -
SG iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF
SGOV - US46436E7186 15.00% -
VD Vanguard Consumer Staples Index Fund ETF Shares
VDC - US92204A2078 15.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 10.00% -
VG Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
VGT - US92204A7028 10.00% -
VH Vanguard Health Care Index Fund ETF Shares
VHT - US92204A5048 10.00%
This portfolio is mostly in US stocks, with 85% in equity ETFs and 15% in an ultra‑short Treasury bond ETF. Within the stock portion, a broad S&P 500 fund is the anchor at 40%, complemented by three sector funds in technology, health care, and consumer staples plus an additional NASDAQ 100 growth sleeve. This mix combines a diversified core with targeted tilts toward specific themes. Structurally, that means much of the experience will feel like a US stock portfolio, but with extra emphasis on tech and defensives and a cash‑like buffer. The 15% short‑term Treasury holding can help dampen swings, while the sector funds introduce more distinct patterns of ups and downs than a single broad ETF alone.
Growth
Over the period from late 2020 to mid‑2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to $2,079, a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 13.36%. CAGR is like your average speed on a road trip, smoothing out the bumps along the way. This return trailed the US market benchmark by about 2.5 percentage points per year and was just slightly behind the global benchmark. The portfolio’s worst peak‑to‑trough fall, or max drawdown, was -20.79%, a bit milder than both benchmarks. Recovering from that drawdown took about 14 months, showing that while the ride can be bumpy, it has historically bounced back. As always, these numbers are backward‑looking and don’t guarantee similar results in the future.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection uses many randomized “what if” paths based on historical patterns to estimate possible future outcomes. It’s like running the next 15 years a thousand different ways using past volatility and returns as a guide. In these simulations, a $1,000 starting amount ends with a median outcome of about $2,741, with a fairly wide middle range from roughly $1,882 to $4,029. The annualized return across all simulations is 7.64%, noticeably lower than the recent historical CAGR, which is a more conservative assumption. Around three‑quarters of the runs finish above the starting point. These results show what could happen, not what will happen, and they depend heavily on past data staying roughly comparable.
Asset classes
- Stocks 85%
- Cash 15%
By asset class, the portfolio sits at 85% stocks and 15% cash‑like short‑term Treasuries. That’s meaningfully more conservative than an all‑equity setup, but still clearly growth‑oriented. Stocks are typically the main driver of long‑term growth, while very short‑term government bonds act more like a stabilizer, similar to keeping some money in a high‑quality savings vehicle. This 15% cushion can reduce overall volatility and soften drawdowns when stocks are under pressure. Compared with broad equity benchmarks, which are usually close to 100% stock, this portfolio deliberately trades some potential upside for lower swings. That helps explain why its drawdowns have been slightly milder than the US and global market references.
Sectors
- Technology 31%
- Consumer Staples 17%
- Cash 15%
- Health Care 14%
- Telecommunications 5%
- Consumer Discretionary 5%
- Financials 5%
- Industrials 4%
- Energy 1%
- Utilities 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Real Estate 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Sector‑wise, technology is the standout at 31%, helped by both the dedicated tech ETF and exposure from the S&P 500 and NASDAQ 100 funds. Consumer staples at 17% and health care at 14% form a sizeable defensive block, while other sectors like financials, industrials, and consumer discretionary appear in smaller, more benchmark‑like proportions. Compared with a broad market index, this mix is more tech‑heavy and more tilted toward defensives at the same time. Tech dominance can boost growth in strong markets but may be sensitive to interest rate changes and sentiment around innovation. The staples and health care exposure often behave more steadily, potentially helping balance the more cyclical parts of the portfolio during rough patches.
Regions
- North America 85%
- Cash 15%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Geographically, this portfolio is almost entirely tied to North America, with 85% in US equities and the remaining 15% in US Treasuries. That means performance is closely linked to the US economy, corporate earnings, and dollar movements, rather than being spread across multiple regions. Major global indices usually spread exposure more widely, whereas this approach leans into a single large market. This concentration has worked well in recent years as US stocks, especially large tech names, have outperformed many other regions. At the same time, it leaves relatively little representation of companies and economic cycles outside North America, so global events tend to filter in mainly through their impact on US markets.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 35%
- Large-cap 30%
- Mid-cap 16%
- Small-cap 3%
- Micro-cap 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
The market cap breakdown is skewed toward the very largest companies, with roughly 35% in mega‑caps and 30% in large‑caps. Mid‑caps, small‑caps, and micro‑caps together make up a much smaller slice. That pattern is typical for market‑cap‑weighted US index and sector ETFs, where giants naturally dominate. Bigger companies often have more diversified businesses and established cash flows, which can offer some stability compared with smaller, more volatile firms. On the flip side, a relatively small allocation to smaller companies means less exposure to that part of the market, which has historically behaved differently over cycles. Overall, the size profile closely mirrors broad US benchmarks, reinforcing the portfolio’s large‑cap growth flavor.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 5.53%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc. 5.00%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.40%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
WM Walmart Inc. 2.36%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Consumer Staples Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.90%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
CO Costco Wholesale Corp 1.87%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Consumer Staples Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.80%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 1.65%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.63%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
PG Procter & Gamble Company 1.39%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard Consumer Staples Index Fund ETF Shares
- Top 10 total 26.53%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Looking through the ETFs, several individual companies show up repeatedly, creating hidden concentration. NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft together represent nearly 14% of the portfolio when aggregating their presence across funds. Large retailers and consumer brands like Walmart, Amazon, Costco, and Procter & Gamble also appear in meaningful combined weights. Because only each ETF’s top 10 holdings are captured, total overlap is likely understated. This kind of repetition is common when combining broad US, tech, and NASDAQ 100 funds, which often own similar big names. The effect is that a handful of mega‑cap stocks have a bigger impact on performance than the number of ETFs suggests, especially during periods when those names strongly rise or fall.
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 across the six main dimensions is generally close to market‑like, with the only notable tilt being a mild underweight to value and size. Value measures how cheap stocks look versus fundamentals; a low value score here implies more growth‑oriented holdings, which fits with the tech and NASDAQ allocations. Size being low means the portfolio is tilted away from smaller companies and toward larger ones. Momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility all sit near neutral, suggesting no strong intentional bet on those characteristics. In practice, this profile tends to behave similarly to a broad growth‑leaning US equity index: benefiting when large growth names lead, and lagging when cheaper or smaller stocks come back into favor.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 40.00% 49.4% -
Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 10.00% 17.4% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 10.00% 15.8% -
Vanguard Consumer Staples Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 15.00% 9.0% -
Vanguard Health Care Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 10.00% 8.4% - Top 5 risk contribution 100.0%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives overall ups and downs, which can differ a lot from raw weight. Here, the S&P 500 ETF is 40% of the portfolio but contributes almost half of total risk. The dedicated tech ETF and NASDAQ 100 ETF together are only 20% by weight, yet they account for roughly a third of total risk, reflecting their higher volatility. In contrast, consumer staples and health care contribute noticeably less risk than their weights would suggest, acting as stabilizers. The top three holdings together drive over 80% of portfolio risk, so most of the ride is effectively dictated by those positions, even though several other holdings are present.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationVanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF SharesInvesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Correlation measures how closely different investments move together, on a scale from -1 (opposite directions) to 1 (almost identical). In this portfolio, the NASDAQ 100 ETF and the tech sector ETF are highly correlated, meaning they tend to rise and fall in near‑lockstep. That limits diversification benefits between those two slices, since owning both is somewhat like doubling down on a similar pattern of returns. When highly correlated growth‑oriented assets rally, the effect can be powerful on the upside. But during tech‑led sell‑offs, these two parts can amplify each other’s moves. The presence of the consumer staples, health care, and short‑term Treasury ETFs helps offset that pattern by behaving differently in stressful periods.
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 to an efficient frontier built from the same holdings. The Sharpe ratio, which gauges return per unit of risk beyond a risk‑free rate, is 0.7 for the current mix. The analysis indicates the portfolio sits on or very close to the efficient frontier, meaning that for its chosen risk level, it’s already using these holdings in a mathematically efficient way. There is an “optimal” mix with a higher Sharpe of 0.91, but it also takes on more volatility, and a minimum‑variance mix with extremely low risk and return. The key takeaway is that, within this set of ETFs, the current blend delivers a solid tradeoff between historical risk and reward without obvious inefficiencies.
Dividends
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.40%
- iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF 3.70%
- Vanguard Consumer Staples Index Fund ETF Shares 2.10%
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares 0.40%
- Vanguard Health Care Index Fund ETF Shares 1.50%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.00%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.50%
The overall dividend yield is about 1.50%, with most income coming from the consumer staples ETF and the short‑term Treasury ETF. The tech and NASDAQ 100 slices yield only around 0.40%, which is common for growth‑focused funds that tend to reinvest earnings rather than distribute them. Dividends can matter as a steady return component, especially during flat or choppy markets, but they’re only one part of total return alongside price changes. Here, the yield profile lines up with a growth‑leaning equity allocation buffered by an income‑oriented cash‑like piece. Historically, most of the portfolio’s return has come from capital appreciation rather than payouts, which matches the underlying holdings’ characteristics.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF 0.07%
- Vanguard Consumer Staples Index Fund ETF Shares 0.10%
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares 0.10%
- Vanguard Health Care Index Fund ETF Shares 0.10%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.07%
Portfolio costs are impressively low, with a blended Total Expense Ratio (TER) around 0.07%. TER is the annual fee taken by each fund for managing the portfolio, expressed as a percentage of assets. In plain terms, that’s roughly $0.70 per year on every $1,000 invested, before any trading costs or taxes. The biggest position, the S&P 500 ETF, has a very low 0.03% TER, which helps drag the overall cost down. Even the more specialized sector and NASDAQ funds sit at 0.10–0.15%, still on the cheaper side for their categories. Over long periods, such low ongoing costs leave more of any gross return in the investor’s pocket, supporting better compounding compared with higher‑fee alternatives.
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