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.
The structure is clean and focused: 100% stocks split across four broad funds. Around three-fifths goes into a total US market fund, one-fifth into total international stocks, and the remaining fifth into dedicated small-cap value funds in the US and overseas. This creates a core-and-satellite setup, where broad market funds provide stability and the small value tilt seeks extra return. That kind of design is easy to manage and understand. The main takeaway is that this is a growth-oriented, equity-only portfolio that leans into specific risk factors while still keeping a strong diversified core rather than lots of scattered niche positions.
From late 2019 to early 2026, $1,000 grew to about $2,228, giving a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.36%. CAGR is the “average speed” of growth per year, smoothing out the bumps along the way. This result almost perfectly matched the US market and clearly beat the global market benchmark, which shows the approach has kept pace with a very strong domestic period while adding a factor tilt. The max drawdown of about -36% was steeper than cash or bonds but similar to equities generally, which is normal for an aggressive, stock-only setup.
All capital is in stocks, with no bonds, cash, or alternatives. That all‑equity stance is a classic growth posture: historically higher expected return, but with much bigger ups and downs. Asset classes behave differently at different times, so mixing them is usually the main way to smooth the ride. Here, diversification happens inside the equity bucket rather than across different asset classes. The implication is that this setup suits someone who can sit through substantial volatility and doesn’t need to draw on the money in a severe downturn, because there is no built-in stabilizer like high-quality bonds.
Sector exposure is broad, with technology the largest at 23%, followed by strong weights in financials and industrials. This mix actually looks close to common global equity benchmarks, which is a good sign of diversification. Tech leadership means the portfolio can benefit when innovative companies and digital trends are doing well, but it may feel more turbulence when interest rates rise or sentiment turns against high-growth names. Because no single sector dominates excessively, sector risk is reasonably balanced, allowing overall performance to be driven more by broad economic conditions than by any one industry cycle.
Geographically, about 72% is in North America, with the rest spread across Europe, Japan, other developed Asia, and emerging regions. This is somewhat more US‑tilted than a pure global market cap index, but still includes a meaningful overseas slice. Heavy North American exposure has historically helped in periods when domestic markets outperformed, but it does leave results more tied to one economy and currency. The international allocation provides beneficial diversification, reducing the risk that a single region’s slump dominates the entire outcome, while still keeping the portfolio anchored in familiar home-market companies.
Market-cap exposure ranges from mega‑caps down to micro‑caps, with particularly strong representation in small and mid-sized companies. Around 34% sits in mega‑caps and 25% in large‑caps, but roughly 41% is in mid, small, and micro‑caps combined. Smaller companies historically have higher growth potential but more volatility, and they can behave differently from household-name giants. That spread across sizes creates an additional layer of diversification and supports the small-cap value tilt. The key implication is that returns won’t be driven only by the biggest index names; smaller businesses will be a meaningful driver of both long-term gains and short-term swings.
Looking through the ETFs, the largest underlying exposures are the familiar mega-cap names: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla, Broadcom, and Berkshire. These appear only via the broad index funds, not as individual stocks, but together they still add up to meaningful exposure. That’s expected because broad indices are market-cap weighted, so giant companies naturally dominate. Overlap is likely understated since only top-10 ETF holdings are counted, but the picture still shows that a big slice of risk and return will be driven by how these major growth companies perform over time.
Factor exposure shows strong tilts to value and size, plus a notable lean toward low volatility. Factors are like the underlying “personality traits” of investments that research has linked to long-term returns. Here, high value exposure means more emphasis on cheaper, out-of-favor stocks, while high size exposure tilts toward smaller companies. The low volatility tilt suggests a bias toward somewhat steadier names relative to the broad market. This mix tends to shine when value and small caps come back into favor and may lag during intense growth or mega-cap-led rallies. Because coverage is partial, signals are directional, not precise.
Risk contribution shows how much each position drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from simple weights. The main US total market ETF is 60% of assets but contributes about 61% of risk, closely aligned. The US small-cap value fund is only 10% by weight yet contributes over 12% of risk, reflecting its higher volatility. The international funds contribute slightly less risk than their weights. Overall, the top three positions drive over 90% of total risk, which is normal for a concentrated set of core funds. Adjusting these core weights is the main lever for changing portfolio risk.
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–return chart, the current allocation has a Sharpe ratio of 0.63, below the optimal portfolio’s 0.75 and also lower than the minimum-variance portfolio’s 0.59 at a higher expected return. The Sharpe ratio compares return to volatility, like measuring how much “reward” you get per unit of risk. Because the current point sits below the efficient frontier, it suggests that simply reweighting these existing funds could improve the balance between risk and return. An optimized mix could either seek higher return for similar risk or similar return with lower volatility, without adding new products or strategies.
The overall dividend yield is about 1.77%, with the international and small-cap value funds providing the highest payouts. Dividends are regular cash distributions from companies, which can be taken as income or reinvested to buy more shares. For a growth-focused investor with a long horizon, reinvesting dividends is powerful because it compounds returns over time. For someone seeking income, this yield is modest compared with income-oriented strategies, but it’s respectable for a diversified equity portfolio. The important point is that most of the long-term return here will likely come from capital appreciation rather than from high ongoing cash payouts.
Total ongoing costs are very low at about 0.09% per year, driven by ultra-cheap Vanguard core funds and reasonably priced Avantis satellites. TER, or total expense ratio, is the annual fee charged by each fund, quietly deducted from returns. Keeping TER low is one of the most reliable ways to improve outcomes because fees are guaranteed, while future returns are not. Over decades, the difference between 0.09% and, say, 0.5–1.0% can mean thousands of dollars on the same starting amount. These impressively low costs align strongly with best practices for long-term investing and support efficient compounding.
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