Growth tilted global equity portfolio with strong quality bias and notable stock specific risk

Report created on Apr 5, 2026

Risk 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

The portfolio is a concentrated all‑equity mix, combining broad index ETFs with a few sizable single‑stock bets. Around half sits in diversified funds tracking large developed markets, while the rest is in individual names across consumer, tech, and financial businesses. Being 100% in stocks means the ride can be bumpy, but long‑term growth potential is higher than in portfolios that also hold bonds or cash. This structure suits someone chasing capital growth over decades rather than short‑term stability. A practical takeaway is that with this level of equity exposure, keeping a separate emergency cash buffer outside the portfolio is important so investments aren’t sold in a downturn.

Growth Info

Over the period shown, $1,000 grew to about $1,328, giving a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 6.84%. CAGR is like your average speed on a road trip, smoothing out all the ups and downs. The portfolio lagged both the US market (9.85% CAGR) and global market (8.85% CAGR), mainly while also experiencing a slightly deeper max drawdown of about –31% versus –25% to –26% for the benchmarks. It also took 20 months to fully recover. This history shows that concentrated growth tilts can underperform for multi‑year stretches. Past returns aren’t destiny, but they do highlight the need for patience and realistic expectations.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection uses past return and volatility patterns to simulate 1,000 possible 15‑year paths for a $1,000 investment. Think of it as rolling the dice many times to see a range of futures, not just a single guess. The median outcome is about $2,672, with a broad “likely” range from roughly $1,800 to $4,100, and a 73.7% chance of ending positive. The average simulated annual return is 8.03%. These numbers show decent long‑term growth potential but also big uncertainty. Because simulations rely on historical behavior, which may not repeat, it’s best to use them for setting expectations around ranges, not precise targets.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Everything here is in the stock asset class, with 0% in bonds, cash, or alternatives. That’s a clear growth‑seeking stance. Stocks historically offer higher long‑term returns than bonds, but they also fall harder in crashes and can take years to recover. Asset allocation is the main driver of your overall risk; having just one asset class means no “ballast” if markets slide. This setup can work well for someone with a long horizon and the emotional ability to sit through steep drawdowns. Anyone needing stability or withdrawals in the next few years would generally benefit from mixing in lower‑volatility assets elsewhere in their overall finances.

Sectors Info

  • Consumer Discretionary
    31%
  • Financials
    19%
  • Technology
    16%
  • Telecommunications
    10%
  • Industrials
    7%
  • Health Care
    6%
  • Consumer Staples
    3%
  • Energy
    3%
  • Basic Materials
    2%
  • Utilities
    2%
  • Real Estate
    1%

Sector exposure is quite tilted toward Consumer Discretionary at 31%, then Financials at 19%, with Technology at 16%. This differs from broad global benchmarks, where tech usually dominates and consumer sectors are smaller. A consumer‑heavy profile can be sensitive to economic cycles: spending on non‑essentials tends to drop when growth slows or unemployment rises. Financials add exposure to interest‑rate and credit conditions. On the positive side, you’re not overly concentrated in just one classic “hot” sector like pure tech, and you do have smaller allocations across most remaining areas. Still, expect more cyclical behavior than a perfectly even sector mix.

Regions Info

  • North America
    64%
  • Europe Developed
    17%
  • Latin America
    10%
  • Asia Emerging
    8%
  • Japan
    1%

Geographically, about 64% is in North America, 17% in developed Europe, 10% in Latin America, 8% in emerging Asia, and 1% in Japan. That’s somewhat more global than a typical US‑only portfolio, and the Latin America and India allocations add higher‑growth, higher‑volatility regions. Versus a standard global index, North America is still a bit dominant, but emerging markets have a slightly larger footprint here. This alignment with global patterns is generally healthy and supports diversification across economies and currencies. The flip side is that you’re exposed to both developed‑market cycles and more volatile emerging‑market swings, which can amplify short‑term noise.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    51%
  • Large-cap
    35%
  • Mid-cap
    10%
  • Small-cap
    3%

Market‑cap exposure is skewed toward the giants: 51% in mega‑caps and 35% in large‑caps, with just 13% combined in mid and small‑caps. That’s broadly similar to global indices, where the largest companies dominate total market value. Bigger firms tend to be more stable and diversified businesses, which can help steady returns compared to an all small‑cap portfolio. The small but present mid/small‑cap sleeve (including the Russell Small Cap ETF) adds some extra growth potential and diversification. Overall, this mix is well‑balanced and aligns closely with global standards, which is a positive foundation from a market‑cap perspective.

True holdings Info

  • Amazon.com Inc
    12.85%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares MSCI World ETF
    Direct holding 11.36%
  • Nu Holdings Ltd
    9.60%
  • LVMH Moët Hennessy - Louis Vuitton Société Européenne
    8.42%
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    5.88%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares MSCI World ETF
    Direct holding 4.58%
  • On Holding Ltd
    4.60%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    3.15%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares MSCI World ETF
  • Apple Inc
    2.82%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares MSCI World ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    2.06%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares MSCI World ETF
  • Broadcom Inc
    1.08%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares MSCI World ETF
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    1.05%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • iShares MSCI World ETF
  • Top 10 total 51.51%

Looking through the ETFs, there’s clear extra concentration in a handful of mega‑cap names. Amazon ends up at roughly 13% of the portfolio when you add direct and ETF exposure, and Alphabet is closer to 6% for the same reason. Other big tech names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, and Broadcom show up via funds as well, even though you don’t hold them directly. Because only ETF top‑10 positions are counted, the real overlap is probably a bit higher. The main implication is that your future returns will be heavily influenced by how a small set of big US growth companies perform, even though part of that exposure is hidden inside ETFs.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 92%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Low
Data availability: 100%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 92%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
High
Data availability: 92%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 74%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 100%

Factor exposures are estimated using statistical models based on historical data and measure systematic (market-relative) tilts, not absolute portfolio characteristics. Results may vary depending on the analysis period, data availability, and currency of the underlying assets.

Factor exposure is mostly market‑like, with one clear standout: quality at 63%, which is a mild tilt toward higher‑quality companies. Factor exposure just means how much your holdings lean into traits like value, size, momentum, quality, yield, or low volatility that research links to returns. A quality tilt often shows up as stronger balance sheets, steadier earnings, and more resilient businesses. That can help during rough markets, even within an all‑equity setup. Value, momentum, yield, and low‑volatility all sit near neutral, and size is only mildly tilted away from smaller companies. Overall, this factor mix is balanced with a constructive bias toward quality.

Risk contribution Info

  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Weight: 27.95%
    21.7%
  • Nu Holdings Ltd
    Weight: 9.60%
    18.7%
  • Amazon.com Inc
    Weight: 11.36%
    15.8%
  • iShares MSCI World ETF
    Weight: 20.71%
    15.5%
  • On Holding Ltd
    Weight: 4.60%
    8.0%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 79.8%

Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives overall volatility, which can differ a lot from its simple weight. Here, Nu Holdings is just under 10% of the portfolio but contributes almost 19% of total risk, while Amazon also adds more risk than its weight suggests. In contrast, the broad ETFs (S&P 500 and MSCI World) each contribute less risk than their share of capital. The top three holdings together account for over half of the portfolio’s total risk. This means day‑to‑day moves will be heavily shaped by a few growth names. Adjusting position sizes is one way investors can bring risk contributions closer to their comfort level.

Redundant positions Info

  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    iShares MSCI World ETF
    High correlation

The correlation section highlights that the MSCI World ETF and S&P 500 ETF move almost identically. Correlation measures how often assets move together; when it’s very high, holding both doesn’t add much diversification. You’re basically getting a lot of large developed‑market exposure twice, just wrapped in different tickers. This isn’t “bad,” but it’s useful to see that these two funds behave more like one big block than two independent diversifiers. If someone wanted to change the portfolio’s behavior meaningfully, they’d typically look at adding assets that zig when these funds zag, instead of ones that echo the same pattern.

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.

The efficient frontier chart compares your current mix to the best possible combinations of the same holdings. The Sharpe ratio (return minus risk‑free rate, divided by volatility) is 0.32 for the current portfolio, while the optimal weighting reaches 0.67. Being about 4.25 percentage points below the frontier at the same risk level means you’re not getting as much expected return per unit of risk as you theoretically could with just different weights. The minimum‑variance mix shows what a lower‑risk version might look like. The key insight: even without adding new assets, simply reweighting between existing ETFs and stocks could improve the overall risk‑return balance.

Dividends Info

  • Alphabet Inc Class A 0.30%
  • LVMH Moët Hennessy - Louis Vuitton Société Européenne 2.70%
  • SPDR Russell Small Cap Completeness 1.40%
  • iShares MSCI World ETF 1.50%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 0.95%

The overall dividend yield is modest at about 0.95%, with some names like LVMH and the ETFs providing most of it, while growth‑oriented stocks such as Amazon and Alphabet pay little or nothing. Dividend yield is the annual cash payout as a percentage of share price, like interest from a savings account, but variable. A low portfolio yield is typical for growth‑focused equity blends and isn’t a problem if the goal is long‑term capital appreciation rather than current income. For someone relying on their portfolio to pay bills, though, this setup would likely require selling shares periodically, not just living off dividends.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • iShares MSCI India ETF 0.65%
  • SPDR Russell Small Cap Completeness 0.03%
  • iShares MSCI World ETF 0.24%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.11%

Your weighted average ETF cost (Total Expense Ratio, or TER) is around 0.11%, which is impressively low. TER is the annual fee charged by a fund, taken directly from its assets; over decades, even small differences compound. Most of the allocation sits in very cheap core building‑block funds, with only the India ETF charging a noticeably higher fee, which is pretty normal for that niche. Low costs mean more of the portfolio’s gross return stays in your pocket. This is a real strength of the setup and supports better long‑term performance compared with similar portfolios using higher‑fee active funds.

What next?

Ready to invest in this portfolio?

Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.

Select broker

Create your own report?

Analyze your portfolio

Join our community!

Join Discord

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