High growth US stock portfolio with strong tech tilt and impressively low ongoing costs
Report created on Mar 27, 2026Risk profile
- Secure Speculative
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.
Diversification profile
- Focused Diversified
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.
Positions
-
FX Fidelity 500 Index Fund
FXAIX - US3159117502 70.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 30.00%
The structure is very straightforward: two funds holding only stocks, with about 70% in a broad US large-cap index and 30% in a NASDAQ 100 ETF. This means the whole portfolio lives in public equities and leans clearly toward large innovative companies. Structure matters because it dictates how the portfolio reacts to different markets and how much diversification you actually get. With just two funds, it’s simple to follow and easy to manage, but true diversification across assets and regions is limited. The key takeaway is that this setup is built for growth and simplicity rather than for balancing different types of assets or smoothing the ride.
Growth
From late 2020 to March 2026, $1,000 grew to about $2,008. The CAGR, or compound annual growth rate, is 13.69%, meaning the money grew at that average annual pace over the period, similar to a long road-trip’s average speed. That slightly edges out the US market benchmark and clearly beats the global market, which is a solid outcome. The trade-off is a max drawdown of about -27%, a reminder that big drops are part of the journey. This period was unusually strong for US large growth stocks, so it’s important to remember that past performance, especially during a favorable cycle, doesn’t guarantee similar future results.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of the allocation is in stocks, with no bonds, cash, or alternative assets. Asset classes behave differently: stocks drive long-term growth but can swing sharply, while bonds and cash usually smooth volatility and provide ballast in rough markets. Being 100% in equities maximizes exposure to economic growth and innovation but also means accepting full market shocks without a built-in cushion. This setup aligns well with a growth mindset and longer horizons but can be emotionally and financially challenging during deep downturns. A general takeaway is that anyone using a similar structure should be intentionally comfortable with major ups and downs over multi-year periods.
Sectors
- Technology 39%
- Telecommunications 13%
- Financials 9%
- Health Care 8%
- Consumer Discretionary 7%
- Industrials 7%
- Consumer Staples 6%
- Consumer Discretionary 4%
- Energy 2%
- Utilities 2%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector exposure is dominated by technology and related areas, with tech alone near 39% and meaningful weight in telecommunications and other growth-oriented sectors. More cyclical and defensive sectors like utilities, real estate, and basic materials are relatively small. Sector mix matters because different areas of the economy react very differently to interest rates, inflation, and business cycles. A tech-heavy tilt tends to benefit when innovation is rewarded and borrowing costs are stable or falling, but can feel painful when rates rise or sentiment turns against growth stories. The positive angle is that this composition aligns closely with how major US indexes currently look, which supports broad market-like exposure.
Regions
- North America 99%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geographically, almost everything is in North America, with only a token allocation to developed Europe and effectively no emerging markets exposure. Geography matters because different regions have distinct economic cycles, currencies, and policy regimes. A heavy US focus has been a tailwind for the last decade, as US large caps have outpaced many other markets. However, this also means fortunes are tightly tied to the US economy, politics, and dollar movements. Relative to global benchmarks that hold much more non-US stock, this is a clear home bias. The key takeaway is that global diversification is limited here; outcomes will largely reflect how US markets perform versus the rest of the world.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 48%
- Large-cap 35%
- Mid-cap 16%
- Small-cap 1%
Market-cap exposure is heavily skewed toward the largest companies: roughly 48% mega-cap and 35% large-cap, with only a thin slice in mid and especially small caps. Company size matters because smaller firms often have higher growth potential but also higher risk and more volatility, while mega-caps tend to be more stable but driven by a few dominant names. This profile means returns will closely track big-brand giants rather than the broader economic base of smaller businesses. It’s quite aligned with mainstream US index construction, which also favors larger companies. The upside is familiarity and liquidity; the trade-off is less participation in potential small-cap rebounds or local growth stories.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 2.57%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 2.22%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 1.71%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.36%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.14%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.07%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.06%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
WM Walmart Inc. Common Stock 0.98%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 0.98%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 0.92%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Top 10 total 14.00%
Looking through the funds, the largest visible exposures are mega-cap names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Tesla, Meta, Alphabet, Walmart, and Broadcom. Several of these appear via both the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ 100, creating hidden concentration in a handful of powerful companies even though they’re held indirectly. Overlap is probably higher than reported because only ETF top-10s are captured. Hidden concentration matters because a few companies can end up driving a big share of your gains and losses. The main takeaway is that this portfolio quietly leans on the fortunes of a small set of mega-caps at the top of the US market.
Factors
Factor exposure shows a very low tilt to size, meaning a strong lean away from smaller companies and toward very large ones. Factor investing looks at characteristics like size, value, or momentum as ingredients that help explain returns, similar to understanding a recipe rather than just tasting the dish. With size so low, this portfolio is underweight the “small size” factor that has historically delivered a long-term premium, though not consistently. Most other factors appear mildly underweight or neutral, so behavior will be dominated by broad market moves plus the large-cap growth flavor. The main implication is that performance will likely echo big US blue chips rather than factor-driven niche strategies.
Risk contribution
-
Fidelity 500 Index Fund
Weight: 70.00% 64.2% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 30.00% 35.8%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding adds to the portfolio’s overall volatility, which can differ from simple weight. Here, the 70% broad index fund contributes about 64% of the risk, slightly less than its weight, while the 30% NASDAQ ETF contributes about 36%, more than its share. This tells you the NASDAQ portion is punchier, acting like a volume knob on overall swings. When a smaller allocation contributes disproportionately more risk, it’s worth recognizing that it’s the main driver of extra upside and downside. Rebalancing the split between these two funds over time can be a simple way to dial total risk up or down without changing products.
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.
On the risk–return chart, the current portfolio has a Sharpe ratio of about 0.69, while the optimal and minimum-variance portfolios using these same holdings reach around 0.79. The Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of volatility, like asking how much “reward” you get for each unit of “stress.” Being below the efficient frontier suggests there’s room to rearrange the weights between the two funds to get either similar return with less risk or higher expected return at the same risk. Since no new products are needed, this is a pure allocation question. Periodic rebalancing toward the more efficient mix could subtly improve risk-adjusted outcomes over time.
Dividends
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 1.20%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.99%
The blended dividend yield is around 0.99%, with the broad index fund yielding slightly more and the NASDAQ ETF a bit less. Dividends are the cash payments companies distribute to shareholders, which can be an important part of total return, especially for more income-focused investors. Here, the yield is modest, which is typical for growth-oriented US large-cap portfolios where companies prefer reinvesting profits back into the business. That suits a strategy focused on capital appreciation rather than current cash flow. Over time, even a small yield can help, but the main driver of results in a structure like this will be price growth rather than regular income.
Ongoing product costs
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.02%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%
Total ongoing costs are impressively low at about 0.06% per year. The broad index fund is extremely cheap, and the NASDAQ ETF is still low-cost by historical standards. Expense ratios matter because they quietly chip away at returns every single year; saving even a fraction of a percent compounds into meaningful money over decades. This cost profile is very well aligned with index-based investing best practices and supports better long-term performance than higher-fee strategies with similar exposures. The main takeaway is that fees are not a drag here, which is a big positive. Attention can focus on allocation choices rather than hunting down extra savings on costs.
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!
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