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 thing looks “simple Boglehead” at first glance and then quietly swerves into factor-nerd territory. Nearly 70% is in two giant vanilla index funds, which screams normal, but then you’ve bolted on chunky small-cap value and a surprisingly token 10% in muni bonds. It’s like a balanced portfolio cosplaying as a pure equity strategy. For a “balanced” risk profile, 89% stocks is you saying “yeah I read the warning label and ignored it.” The upside is clarity: core plus satellites makes sense. The catch is you’re basically running an equity machine with a decorative bond hood ornament.
Historically, you’ve done “good but not hero” versus the benchmarks. CAGR (compound annual growth rate — your average speed over the trip) is 9.65%, behind the US market at 11.41% and roughly in line with the global market at 9.47%. Max drawdown at about -24% is basically the same gut punch as the benchmarks, so you took the pain but not the full upside. End value of 1,461 versus 1,619 for US shows the price of tilting away from pure US growth darlings. Past data is yesterday’s weather though: informative, not psychic. Expect similar vibes, not copy-paste repeats.
Monte Carlo simulation is basically running your portfolio through a thousand alternate timelines: some lucky, some brutal, most boringly average. Across those simulations, a median 10‑year total return of about 219% says your $1,000 often ends up around $3,200-ish, while the 5th percentile at only 16% is the “everything feels cursed” scenario. The 9.83% annualized simulated return lines up with history, but again, that’s “if the universe behaves kinda like it did before.” Reality will do its own thing. The range of outcomes here reminds you that a good plan still needs emotional resilience when you’re stuck near that ugly left tail.
For a so-called balanced risk profile, 89% stocks is basically saying, “bonds are for other people’s feelings.” Ten percent in muni bonds and 1% in cash is the financial equivalent of a seatbelt loosely draped over your lap. It won’t destroy you, but it won’t save you in a proper crash either. The good news is, at least you committed — this is an equity-led growth setup, not a confused half-and-half. Just accept that when markets tank, this thing is going down with them, and that bond slice is more like moral support than a real stabilizer.
Sector-wise, you’re suspiciously close to a broad market clone: tech-heavy at 20%, then decent chunks of financials, industrials, and cyclicals. You didn’t pick sectors; you just took what the indexes gave you, with a side of value tilt. That’s not bad, but don’t pretend you’re insulated from a tech tantrum or credit blow-up — your 20% tech plus big financials will absolutely feel it. The subtle plus: you’re not catastrophically overexposed to any single niche. But sector risk here is still “ride the global equity rollercoaster,” not “zen monk of diversification.”
Geographically, this is “America is home base but not the entire universe.” About 57% in North America keeps you firmly US-centric, but the rest is actually decently spread across developed and emerging regions. Shockingly sensible international exposure for a portfolio clearly driven by US-centric products. You’re not all-in on domestic comfort, and you’re not overdoing exotic markets for bragging rights either. The downside: you’ll still live and die by US headlines, but at least there’s some ballast elsewhere when regional narratives diverge. Overall, the geographic bias is strong but not obsessive — more “home-court advantage” than “America or bust.”
Market cap mix shows you’re playing in all weight classes: about a third in megacaps, good chunks in big and mid, plus a real 11% small and 6% micro. This isn’t a token small-cap nod; you’ve genuinely invited the gremlins to the party. That’s great for long-term return potential but also great for volatility and weird short-term behavior. Small and micro caps can disappear, lag for years, then suddenly sprint. You’ve basically bolted a high-beta sidecar onto a mainstream market motorcycle. If you can’t stomach looking wrong for multi-year stretches, this size tilt becomes more of a psychological test than a clever strategy.
Under the hood, you’re still worshipping at the altar of the usual megacap gods: Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla, etc. You didn’t buy them directly, but your index funds happily did it for you. That 2–3% in single names via ETFs is fine, but don’t kid yourself you’re “diversified away from big tech.” Overlap is absolutely there, even if only the ETF top 10 is visible, so the concentration is understated not overstated. Takeaway: you’re essentially holding the standard market celebrities plus some scrappy small value extras, which is fine, just not as “off-the-beaten-path” as the factor tilt suggests.
Factor exposure is where the mask fully slips: you are absolutely a value/size/yield junkie. Value 85%, size 85%, yield 85% — that’s a heavy bet on “cheap, smaller, and pays something.” Momentum is moderate, quality and low volatility are only halfway there, meaning you’re not especially picky about sturdiness as long as the price looks good. Factor exposure is like the ingredient list behind your “diversified” label, and this recipe says you’re banking on value and small caps finally having their revenge. That can pay off big when the cycle turns, but in long growth-led stretches you’ll look like the slow kid in class.
Risk contribution exposes who’s actually driving the drama, and surprise: your 45% US total market fund is doing 52% of the risk heavy lifting. The 10% US small-cap value sleeve kicks in over 13% of total risk, so that little satellite is swinging way above its weight class. Top three holdings delivering nearly 90% of total portfolio risk means the rest are pretty much background singers. Risk contribution is basically asking “who’s shaking the boat?” not “who’s sitting where.” Trimming or reshuffling those big drivers, if they ever feel misaligned with your risk tolerance, is how you avoid waking up shocked during rough markets.
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, you’re sitting on the efficient frontier, which means for your current mix, you’re not wasting risk. That’s the good news. The spicy bit: the “optimal” portfolio using the same ingredients shows a Sharpe ratio of 0.77 versus your 0.52, with higher expected return (14.32% vs 9.79%) for only somewhat more risk. The efficient frontier is like a menu of best trade-offs; you picked a decent dish, but not the chef’s special. Reweighting what you already own — no new toys required — could dial things closer to that sweet spot if you’re up for stomaching a bit more volatility.
A total yield of around 2.1% puts this squarely in the “fine but not an income monster” zone. You’ve nudged it up a bit with value and international exposure, plus a muni ETF, but this is still a growth-forward portfolio that happens to pay you some pocket money. If someone’s dreaming of living off dividends alone here, good luck with that rent. Yield is a side dish, not the main course. The upside: you’re not over-chasing yield junk and accidentally loading up on slow, fragile stuff just for a slightly bigger quarterly check.
Total TER at 0.09% is comically low for a portfolio this thought-out. Fees are under control — you clearly clicked the cheap stuff on purpose, not by accident. You’re basically running a fairly sophisticated factor-tilted, globally diversified equity strategy for the price of a bad index fund from 2005. Costs matter because they’re the one thing guaranteed to hit returns every year, and you’ve almost turned that drag off. At this fee level, you can’t blame expenses for underperformance; if things lag, it’s the factor calls, not the price tag, doing the damage.
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