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.
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.
This portfolio is the IKEA starter kit of indexing: two giant total market funds plus two spice-jar value tilts. It’s 100% stocks, fully growth-brained, but with just enough small-cap value sprinkled in to say “I watch financial YouTube.” The structure is clean but a bit binary: you either believe in global capitalism or you really, really believe in it. No ballast, no safety net, just vibes and equity beta. The upside is simplicity and easy maintenance. The downside is that when markets go down, this thing doesn’t have brakes, airbags, or even a seatbelt—just a really nice paint job.
Performance-wise, this portfolio shows up to the party well-dressed but slightly late. A 13.77% CAGR since 2019 is strong, but the US market did 15.22%, so you basically paid in returns for being more international and more valuey. CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is the “average speed” of your money over time; here, your car drove fast, just not fastest. Max drawdown of -37.51% in 2020 says you rode the COVID rollercoaster with both hands in the air. You did beat the global market, though, so globally you’re the overachiever; compared to the US, you’re the kid who almost got an A.
The Monte Carlo projection basically says: “Most futures look decent, but don’t get cocky.” Monte Carlo is just a fancy way of rolling the market dice 1,000 times to see different possible 15‑year paths. Median outcome of $2,786 from $1,000 is solid, but that $1,018 at the pessimistic end is a polite reminder that stocks don’t owe you anything. An 8.25% average simulated annual return is nice on paper, yet simulations are like backtesting with more imagination—still built on yesterday’s weather. The big takeaway: long-term odds favor you, but the ride can easily be disappointing if you expect the “most likely” outcome as guaranteed.
Asset class breakdown is extremely subtle here: it’s 100% stocks, and 0% everything else. That’s not an allocation; that’s a personality trait. There’s no bonds, no cash buffer, no anything-that-doesn’t-crash-40%-in-a-panic. That can be fine for long horizons, but let’s not pretend this is a “balanced” setup. It’s a one-trick pony, even if it’s a well-bred pony. If the plan is to hold through multiple crashes, this structure demands either iron discipline or blissful ignorance. Anyone hoping for “smooth” returns is going to discover this portfolio drives like a go-kart on a gravel road.
Sector mix looks surprisingly normal for something this spicy on factors. Tech at 19% is elevated but not full “tech addiction,” and financials and industrials are close behind. You’re not all-in on any single theme, which is refreshingly sane. But remember: your big-name tech and consumer giants are still doing a lot of hidden heavy lifting on returns, even if sector weights look balanced. A 2% slice in utilities and real estate says you don’t care much for boring, rent-collecting stability; you want the more economically sensitive stuff that moves when growth expectations change. The portfolio basically shrugs at defensiveness and leans into the business cycle drama instead.
Geographically, this is “America first, but not only” — 59% North America, with a real effort to own the rest of the world. For a US-based setup, that’s actually fairly grown-up. You’ve got developed Europe, Japan, and little bits of every continent sprinkled in like seasoning rather than afterthoughts. The roast here is that international exposure has been a drag versus pure US lately, so you’ve nobly chosen the harder road. Sometimes that’s smart long-term diversification; sometimes it’s just volunteering for underperformance. Either way, this isn’t a naive home‑country‑only portfolio — it actually looks like someone read at least one decent book.
Market cap allocation is where the quiet aggression lives. Around 30% mega-cap and 21% large-cap looks normal, then you see 21% mid-cap, 17% small-cap, and 8% micro-cap. That’s not “dabbling” in smaller companies; that’s leaning in. Small and micro-caps are like the indie bands of the market: lots of potential, lots of volatility, and occasional spectacular flops. The big boys still anchor the ship, but there’s a non-trivial chunk of the portfolio ready to swing much harder in both directions. This mix is built for long-term growth, not for anyone who checks their account daily and expects emotional stability.
The look-through holdings scream “I diversify” while quietly handing most of the power to the usual megacap suspects. NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla — all the tech celebrity cast is here, wearing different ETF costumes. Even though the coverage is only based on top-10 holdings, it’s obvious you’re still heavily hitched to the big US growth engine you pretend you’re tilting away from. Overlap means when these names sneeze, multiple ETFs in the portfolio catch a cold. The lesson: owning several broad funds doesn’t mean you escaped concentration; sometimes you just bought the same stars three times in different wrappers.
Factor profile screams “I read about small value and went all in.” High value (65%) and high size (61% toward smaller caps) plus high low volatility (60%) is a pretty quirky combo: “I like cheap, smaller stuff, but please don’t let it be totally insane.” Factor exposure is basically the ingredient label of your portfolio’s behavior, and here the label says bargain-hunting with a helmet on. Neutral momentum and quality means you’re not chasing winners or obsessing over pristine balance sheets. This could shine when value and small caps have their day, but it will feel painfully off-trend during mega-cap growth booms — which is exactly what the recent US market has been.
Risk contribution shows who’s actually shaking the portfolio, not just who’s taking up space. Your total US market fund is 40% weight and contributes basically 40% of the risk — perfectly average chaos. The US small-cap value ETF is only 15% weight but contributes 19.3% of risk, with a risk/weight of 1.29 — that’s the kid in class talking way louder than their size suggests. Top three positions generate over 86% of total risk, so despite four holdings, you’re effectively being emotionally held hostage by a handful. Trimming the loudest risk hogs a bit could make the portfolio feel less like an all‑or‑nothing election every time the market wobbles.
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.
On the risk vs. return chart, this portfolio is basically standing below the efficient frontier holding a “close enough?” sign. The efficient frontier is the curve of best possible returns for each risk level using your existing ingredients. Your current setup has a Sharpe ratio of 0.56, while the optimal mix of the same funds clocks in at 0.8 with slightly higher return and slightly lower risk. That’s like driving a car stuck in Eco mode when Sport mode uses the same fuel. You don’t even need new holdings — just smarter weights would move you closer to the frontier instead of leaving easy risk-adjusted return on the table.
A 1.90% total yield is “we pay you something so you don’t complain, but don’t quit your day job.” The international pieces pull their weight with 2.8% yields, while US small-cap value and the US total market are stingier. This isn’t a dividend portfolio; it’s a total-return portfolio that happens to throw off a modest cash trickle. If someone is secretly hoping this will fund living expenses, reality will show up quickly with a calculator and a smirk. The positive spin: lower yield often means more earnings being reinvested for growth, which fits the overall aggressive tone here.
Costs are impressively low, Total TER at 0.12%. That’s “I know how to sort by expense ratio” territory. The Vanguard pieces are cheap to the point of comedy (0.03% and 0.05%), while the Avantis value tilts are pricier but still reasonable for active-ish factor strategies. You’re not getting fleeced here; if anything, you’re getting a discount ride on a pretty sophisticated factor setup. The roast, such as it is: you’ve removed the “fees are the problem” excuse. If performance lags, you can’t blame Wall Street toll booths — it’ll come down to factor timing and your tolerance for being early and uncomfortable.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
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.
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey