A two ETF portfolio pretending to be diversified while basically just hugging the same index
Report created on Mar 16, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
3/5
Positions
-
VT Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
VT - US9220427424 68.00% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 32.00%
This setup is the investing equivalent of ordering two flavors of vanilla and calling it a tasting menu. You’ve got 68% in a global stock fund that’s already heavily tilted to the US, then 32% in an S&P 500 fund that mostly just piles more US on top. For all the “Total World” labeling, this behaves suspiciously like a US mega-cap tracker with a side of marketing. Compared with common balanced portfolios or even global equity trackers, this structure is needlessly overlapping. A cleaner approach would be either: pick one main core fund and stick with it, or deliberately add things that behave differently instead of cloning the same exposure twice.
Growth
Historically, a 13.41% CAGR is very solid — that’s “your money doubled every five to six years” territory. Using round numbers: if someone had put $10,000 into something like this over the backtest period, they’d be staring at roughly $40,000+ now, depending on exact dates. But that came with a -34.10% max drawdown, which is basically watching a third of the account vanish on paper. That’s equity life. And remember, past performance is like an old weather report: useful vibe check, not a prophecy. Sensible next step: assume future returns will be lower and volatility just as rude, and plan contributions and spending rules accordingly.
Projection
The Monte Carlo results are almost comically optimistic on the surface: median scenario ends around 490% of the starting value, with an annualized 15.06% return across simulations. Monte Carlo, by the way, is just a fancy term for “run thousands of what-if markets using past-like patterns and see what happens.” The 5th percentile ending at 90.8% of starting value is the reality check: there are paths where someone goes basically nowhere or slightly backwards in real terms. These simulations also inherit past conditions, which may not repeat. Better to use them to stress-test expectations: plan for the median, emotionally prepare for something closer to that lower band.
Asset classes
- Stocks 99%
- Cash 1%
This is 99% stocks and a token 1% in cash, which is like showing up to a storm with a T-shirt and calling it “weather-appropriate layering.” For a portfolio labeled “Balanced,” this is pure equity with just enough cash to buy lunch. No bonds, no real alternatives, no stabilizers — when stocks sneeze, this catches pneumonia. Common “balanced” setups often run something closer to 40–60% in bonds or other dampeners. If the goal is staying power through crashes, layering in some genuinely defensive or less-volatile assets would make the ride less dramatic and help avoid panic selling at exactly the wrong moments.
Sectors
- Technology 29%
- Financials 16%
- Consumer Discretionary 11%
- Industrials 10%
- Telecommunications 9%
- Health Care 9%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Energy 3%
- Basic Materials 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector-wise, this is tech-heavy but not absurd: 29% in Technology, then 16% Financials, 11% Consumer Cyclicals, 10% Industrials, and a scattering in others. Still, “Tech plus friends” is the vibe. With the top underlying names basically being the usual mega-cap tech and communication suspects, any storm in those sectors hits hard. Compared with broad market indexes, this is roughly aligned, which means it’s carrying the same concentration risks those benchmarks have quietly developed. Someone wanting a more resilient mix could consider deliberately boosting dull but steady sectors instead of just riding whatever the market cap gods decide is fashionable this decade.
Regions
- North America 76%
- Europe Developed 10%
- Asia Emerging 4%
- Japan 4%
- Asia Developed 3%
- Australasia 1%
- Africa/Middle East 1%
- Latin America 1%
Geographically, this is very “America or bust.” About 76% in North America, with scraps tossed to Europe, Japan, and emerging markets. For something labeled “Total World,” the rest of the planet is more of a cameo than a co-star. This is what happens when global funds are market-cap weighted: the US is huge, so it dominates. That works brilliantly when the US outperforms, but if leadership shifts abroad, this setup is basically chained to US fortunes. Anyone who genuinely wants global diversification might tilt more intentionally toward non-US markets instead of just accepting whatever the index committee thinks is big today.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 44%
- Large-cap 33%
- Mid-cap 18%
- Small-cap 4%
- Micro-cap 1%
Market cap exposure screams “Big names only, please”: 44% mega, 33% big, 18% medium, and a token 5% combined in small and micro. That’s less a “broad market” approach and more a popularity contest, with the cool kids table running the show. This can work when giants keep winning, but historically, smaller companies have sometimes driven big chunks of long-term outperformance. The flip side: small caps are moodier than teenagers, so adding them raises volatility. A more intentional size mix could spread growth potential around instead of trusting a few massive firms not to trip over regulation, saturation, or simple mean reversion.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 5.30%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AA Apple Inc 4.43%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 3.72%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 2.69%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.29%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.85%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.82%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.80%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.41%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
-
LL Eli Lilly and Company 0.96%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
- Top 10 total 26.29%
Looking through the ETFs, the “top exposures” list reads like the Magnificent Seven fan club newsletter: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (twice), Meta, Broadcom, Tesla, Eli Lilly. These positions sneak in via both funds, so they’re bigger than they look. The note that overlap is understated because only top 10s are used is important: the real duplication is even higher. Translation: in rough times for mega-cap US growth, this thing will also have a rough time. Anyone wanting actual diversification might consider adding things that don’t live and die with the same handful of US tech and platform giants.
Factors
On factors, the data is thin, but what’s there is telling: strong tilts to Momentum (60.2%) and Low Volatility (56.4%). Factor exposure is basically the recipe card explaining why returns behave a certain way: momentum chases what’s been working, and low volatility prefers the boring-but-steady stuff. Leaning into both says: “I want to ride winners but also not die trying.” It’s not the worst combo, but it’s mostly accidental — a side effect of owning huge, popular, relatively stable mega-caps. If momentum cracks or the market rotates hard toward cheap, ugly value names, this setup could lag badly without the owner even knowing why.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 68.00% 67.2% -
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 32.00% 32.8%
Risk contribution here is impressively boring: the world ETF is 68% weight and 67.2% of risk, the S&P ETF is 32% weight and 32.8% of risk. That near 1:1 risk-to-weight ratio means each fund is doing exactly what its size suggests — no hidden grenade. But both funds are highly correlated, so the “two holdings” thing is more cosmetic than functional. They move together, rise together, and crash together. Trimming one and simplifying might actually make it easier to understand what’s going on. Real risk management would mean introducing holdings that don’t just mirror the same equity roller coaster.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationVanguard S&P 500 ETFVanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
Correlation-wise, the two ETFs are basically twins. Highly correlated assets are like owning ten umbrellas that all break in the same wind gust — technically diversified in count, not in function. In a big equity selloff, both these funds will head south at the same time, which defeats the point of having multiple positions. Correlation isn’t about normal days; it’s what happens in stress. True diversification means mixing things that do not all panic in unison. Reducing redundant positions and adding genuinely different return drivers would help this setup act less like one oversized bet wearing two different ticker symbols.
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.
In risk–return terms, this portfolio is like showing up to a marathon in a race car: fast, but zero chill. For an all-equity setup, the historical return is strong, but efficiency isn’t just about big numbers — it’s about what you had to stomach to get them. With highly correlated holdings and no real ballast, the portfolio sits well below what a proper efficient frontier mix could look like for a “balanced” profile. The obvious fix isn’t chasing higher returns; it’s improving the trade-off. Introduce uncorrelated assets, trim overlapping positions, and you get closer to “best bang for each unit of pain” instead of “hope the market gods stay kind.”
Dividends
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
- Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 1.80%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.61%
The total yield of 1.61% is… fine, in the “at least it’s not zero” sense. The underlying ETFs yield 1.20% and 1.80%, so income is more of a side effect than a design feature. This is a growth-focused, capital-appreciation setup with some pocket change dividends. Depending on life stage, that’s either totally fine or wildly unhelpful. Relying on this for income would be like trying to live off café loyalty points. If income is a real goal, shifting some weight toward higher-yielding yet still sensible holdings — or just planning for systematic withdrawals — would be more reliable than hoping for dividend fairy dust.
Ongoing product costs
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.07%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%
Costs are almost suspiciously low: a blended TER of 0.06%. That’s “did you bribe Vanguard?” territory. Fees this low are objectively a win, because every extra basis point over decades is like a slow leak in a tire. So yes, credit where it’s due: someone either knew exactly what they were doing here or got lucky by gravitating toward the cheap stuff. The irony is that while the price tag is excellent, the structure is still clunky. Next level would be keeping fees this low while cleaning up the redundancy, so you’re not paying even 0.06% twice for essentially the same exposure.
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