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.
Growth Investors
This setup lines up best with an investor who is comfortable with meaningful volatility in pursuit of long‑term growth. A typical fit would be someone with a multi‑decade horizon, such as saving for retirement far in the future, and who can ride out 30–40% drawdowns without panicking. They’re likely interested in evidence‑based strategies like value and small‑cap tilts and are okay lagging popular benchmarks for years if the long‑term odds look favorable. Current income is probably not a priority; the focus is on total return and compounding. A rules‑based, patient personality that can stick to a plan through market noise is key.
The portfolio is a very clean three-fund equity setup: broad US stocks at 50%, US small-cap value at 30%, and broad international stocks at 20%. So everything is in stocks, but across thousands of companies worldwide, with a big intentional tilt toward smaller, cheaper US companies via the small-cap value fund. This structure is simple, easy to monitor, and keeps moving parts to a minimum. For someone targeting growth, that heavy stock mix is appropriate, but it also means living with bigger ups and downs. A practical takeaway is to be sure that this all‑equity, growth‑oriented structure matches the time horizon and emotional tolerance for volatility.
Historically, $1,000 grew to about $2,218 over the period, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.07%. CAGR is like your average speed on a road trip, smoothing out bumps along the way. This lagged the US market by about 1% per year but beat the global market by 1.39% per year, which is a solid result. The max drawdown of -38.32% shows how much the portfolio fell from peak to trough, a reminder that deep dips are part of a 100% stock ride. Only 17 days produced 90% of returns, underscoring why staying invested through rough patches is crucial.
Asset‑class exposure is ultra‑simple: 100% in stocks, with no bonds, cash, or alternatives. That lines up well with a growth‑oriented profile and long time horizon, because stocks historically have offered higher returns in exchange for higher volatility. It does mean there’s no built‑in shock absorber during market stress, so drawdowns can be sharp and emotionally challenging. This all‑equity allocation is common among aggressive investors and is consistent with the “Growth Investors” risk classification. A practical takeaway is that if big swings become uncomfortable, introducing even a modest bond or cash allocation could smooth the ride without fully sacrificing growth.
Sector exposure is reasonably balanced, with technology at 21%, financials at 18%, and industrials and consumer areas well represented. This looks broadly similar to diversified global equity benchmarks, which is a strong indicator of healthy sector diversification. The modest tech tilt, combined with exposure to energy, financials, and cyclicals, means returns are not overly tied to a single theme. During rate hikes or economic slowdowns, sectors like tech or consumer discretionary can be more volatile, while staples and utilities may hold up better. Overall, this sector mix is well‑balanced and aligns closely with global standards, which is a positive sign.
Geographically, about 81% sits in North America, with the rest spread across developed Europe, Japan, other developed Asia, and a smaller slice in emerging regions. This is more US‑heavy than a pure global market allocation, but that is common for US‑based investors and generally has been rewarded over the last decade. The smaller exposure to emerging economies means less sensitivity to their growth booms and busts, and also less currency and political risk from those markets. This geographic setup works well for someone comfortable with a “home bias,” while still getting some diversification benefit from overseas holdings.
Market‑cap exposure is nicely spread: roughly 30% mega‑cap, 21% large‑cap, and a hefty combined 48% in mid, small, and micro‑caps. That’s a much stronger tilt toward smaller companies than a standard market index, mainly due to the 30% allocation to US small‑cap value. Smaller companies tend to be more volatile but have historically offered higher expected returns over long periods. This makes the portfolio more sensitive to small‑cap cycles — it can outperform strongly when smaller firms are in favor, and lag when investors crowd into mega‑caps. It’s a deliberate, growth‑oriented tilt that should be intentional and understood.
Looking through the ETFs’ top holdings, there’s meaningful exposure to mega US names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla, and Berkshire Hathaway. These companies appear via both the total US and international funds, so there is some hidden concentration in the giant global leaders, even though you don’t own them directly. Overlap is likely understated since only ETF top‑10 data is used. This kind of concentration is normal in cap‑weighted funds, but it does tie a chunk of outcomes to the fortunes of a handful of very large firms, especially in tech‑related areas.
Factor exposure shows high tilts to value (68%) and size (66%), with other factors sitting around neutral. Factors are like underlying “personality traits” of stocks that research links to long‑term returns. The strong value tilt means a preference for cheaper, often less popular companies, which can shine after periods when expensive growth stocks cool off but can lag when markets chase flashy names. The strong size tilt reflects that big allocation to smaller companies, adding return potential but also bumpier performance. These tilts are powerful long‑term levers; they work best when an investor is prepared to stick with them through inevitable multi‑year dry spells.
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives overall volatility, which can differ from its weight. The total US market ETF is 50% of the portfolio and contributes about 46.66% of the risk — almost proportional. The small‑cap value ETF is 30% of the weight but 37.48% of the risk, meaning it punches above its size in driving ups and downs. The international fund contributes slightly less risk than its 20% weight. This pattern is exactly what you’d expect: smaller value stocks are inherently choppier. If the ride ever feels too rough, trimming that small‑cap slice would meaningfully dial back 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 portfolio has a Sharpe ratio of 0.6 with about 21.38% volatility and 14.85% expected return. The Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk — higher is better. The optimal mix of these same three funds reaches a Sharpe of 0.67 with slightly lower risk, and the minimum‑variance mix drops risk further but also return. Since your current allocation sits on or very close to the efficient frontier, the tradeoff between risk and return is already highly efficient for this set of holdings. That’s a strong confirmation that the chosen weights are well‑constructed, not randomly aggressive.
The portfolio’s blended dividend yield is about 1.47%, with the international fund providing the highest yield and the US total market the lowest. Dividends are cash payments from companies and can be a steady, if modest, component of total return, especially when reinvested. In a growth‑focused equity portfolio like this, dividends are a nice bonus rather than the main attraction; most of the expected payoff is from price appreciation and factor tilts. For someone not relying on current income, a lower yield is not a problem and can even signal that the portfolio is tilted toward reinvesting in growth opportunities.
Total expense ratio (TER) is impressively low at about 0.10% per year, driven by ultra‑cheap Vanguard index funds and a reasonably priced Avantis factor fund. TER is the ongoing fee you pay to fund managers, quietly deducted from returns. Keeping this number low is one of the easiest ways to improve long‑term outcomes, because every dollar not spent on fees keeps compounding for you. Compared with many actively managed or higher‑fee setups, this cost level is excellent and fully aligned with best practices in low‑cost investing. The costs are impressively low, supporting better long‑term performance and making the structure very efficient.
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