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 portfolio is dominated by broad US total-market index funds, with one big actively managed stock, Berkshire Hathaway, and a small slice of a balanced fund and international ETFs. Around three quarters sits in essentially the same US total market exposure via different share classes and providers. This structure makes the core very simple and rules-based. Because most positions track similar universes, changes in one fund are likely mirrored in the others. The setup is very growth-oriented, with only a tiny bond component. For someone comfortable with equity swings, this straightforward structure is easy to understand and maintain, but it does lean heavily on one main engine: the US stock market.
From 2016 to 2026, $1,000 grew to about $6,129, giving a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) near 20%. CAGR is like average speed on a road trip, showing how fast wealth grew per year, smoothed out. That’s far ahead of both the US market and global market CAGRs, which is a big positive. The worst drop, or max drawdown, was about -34%, similar to the benchmarks, with recovery in a few months after March 2020. This shows the portfolio took equity-like hits but rebounded well. A small handful of days drove most gains, reminding that staying invested through volatility mattered a lot for this success.
The Monte Carlo projection uses many randomized paths based on past returns and volatility to estimate future outcomes. Think of it as running the next 15 years a thousand different ways, then looking at the range. The median outcome grows $1,000 to around $2,687, with most paths between roughly $1,800 and $4,000 and a wide but plausible outer range. The average simulated annual return is just under 8%. This is more modest than recent history, which is realistic since past outperformance may not repeat. Simulations aren’t predictions; they’re more like weather models that show possible scenarios, not guarantees. Still, they suggest good odds of a positive long-term result for a patient equity investor.
About 98% of the portfolio is in stocks and only around 2% in bonds via the balanced fund. Asset classes are the broad buckets—like stocks, bonds, and cash—that behave differently in various markets. Stocks typically drive long-term growth but can swing sharply, while bonds usually smooth the ride and provide income. This equity-heavy mix fits a growth profile and lines up with the “Growth Investor” risk label. Compared with more balanced allocations, this will likely rise more in strong markets and fall more during downturns. The key takeaway is that this structure suits a long horizon and emotional comfort with sizeable drawdowns along the way.
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Sector-wise, the portfolio leans heavily on technology and financials, together making up roughly half of equity exposure, with the rest spread across industrials, health care, telecom, consumer areas, energy, materials, real estate, and utilities. This pattern looks broadly similar to a typical US total-market benchmark, which is a positive sign for diversification. Tech-heavy exposure can boost returns when innovation and growth stocks lead, but it can also mean sharper drops if interest rates rise or sentiment turns against high-growth names. Since the sector mix largely comes from broad index funds rather than big active bets, its evolution will naturally follow how the overall market shifts over time.
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Geographically, about 93% is in North America, with only small slices in Europe, Japan, and other developed and emerging Asian markets. Geography matters because different regions face different economic cycles, regulations, and currency moves. Global benchmarks usually give the US a big share but still leave substantial weight to the rest of the world; here, foreign exposure is noticeably smaller. This US focus has been very rewarding over the past decade, helping fuel strong performance. The flip side is that results are closely tied to one country’s economy and currency. Anyone wanting their long-term wealth linked more to global growth could consider whether this home bias remains comfortable.
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
The portfolio tilts toward mega-cap and large-cap companies, with mid-caps and small-caps making up a smaller but meaningful slice and a tiny allocation to micro-caps. Market capitalization (or “market cap”) is just the value of a company’s shares; bigger firms tend to be more stable but can grow slower, while smaller firms can be more volatile but sometimes offer higher long-term growth potential. This size breakdown broadly resembles a typical total-market index. That’s a solid foundation, as it avoids extreme bets on either huge blue-chips or tiny speculative names. The blend should deliver market-like behavior, with most risk and return driven by the largest, well-known companies.
Looking through the funds, Berkshire Hathaway and NVIDIA appear both directly and via ETFs, creating hidden overlaps. Berkshire totals nearly 8% of exposure, while NVIDIA is about 2.7%, with a good chunk coming indirectly through index funds. Because only ETF top-10 holdings are captured, true overlap with other large names is likely higher than shown. This is common with broad-market indexing but worth recognizing. When the same big company sits in several layers, its ups and downs can influence results more than a quick glance at tickers suggests. Still, most positions mirror the whole market, so no single company (other than Berkshire) dominates overall risk.
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 here is essentially market-like across value, size, momentum, quality, and low volatility, with all sitting in the neutral band. Factor investing looks at underlying characteristics—like cheapness (value) or trend-following (momentum)—that have historically influenced returns. A neutral footprint means the portfolio isn’t making big tilts toward or away from any of these styles; it’s behaving much like the broad market. Yield is modestly low, which fits a growth-oriented, US-heavy equity mix that focuses more on price appreciation than income. Overall, this well-balanced factor profile is a strength, as it avoids overreliance on any single style that might underperform for long stretches.
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives overall ups and downs, which can differ from the dollar weight. Here, the two big Vanguard Total Stock Market positions plus Berkshire together produce over 80% of the portfolio’s risk. That’s understandable since they also make up most of the allocation. Interestingly, Berkshire contributes slightly less risk than its size might suggest, reflecting its somewhat different behavior versus the broad market. The main point is that the broad US index funds are the true risk engine; the smaller Schwab and international pieces barely move the needle on volatility. Periodic check-ins can help ensure this risk concentration still matches the intended strategy over time.
The correlation data shows many funds moving almost in lockstep. Correlation measures how similarly two investments move: 1 means they move together, 0 means no relationship, and -1 means they move in opposite directions. Here, the US total-market and large-cap funds from Vanguard and Schwab behave nearly identically, and the international funds also mirror each other closely. That’s not inherently bad—these are designed to track similar indexes—but it means owning multiple versions doesn’t add much diversification. During big market selloffs, most of these holdings will likely fall together. The real diversification benefits mainly come from the small bond slice and the limited international exposure.
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 sits below the efficient frontier, with a Sharpe ratio around 0.61. The Sharpe ratio compares excess return to volatility, like how much “bang for your risk buck” you’re getting. Being below the frontier means that, using just these existing holdings, a different mix could achieve either higher expected return for the same risk or similar return with less risk. The minimum-variance portfolio has lower risk and a slightly better Sharpe, while the maximum-Sharpe mix pushes risk and return to extremes. The key takeaway: there’s room to fine-tune weights among these funds to improve efficiency, without needing to add new products.
The overall dividend yield is about 1.39%, with most US equity funds yielding around 1.1%, international equities a bit higher, and the balanced fund much higher due to its bond component. Dividend yield is the annual income paid out as a percentage of price, like rent from your investments. For a growth-tilted equity portfolio, a lower yield isn’t a problem; it simply means more of the return is expected from price increases rather than cash payouts. This setup suits investors who care more about long-term growth than immediate income. Anyone counting on regular cash flow might want to be aware that, today, this mix is more growth-focused than income-focused.
The cost structure is a real bright spot. The total expense ratio (TER) averages around 0.04%, which is extremely low by industry standards. TER is the annual fee charged by funds, expressed as a percentage of assets—like a small service charge taken each year. Keeping this near rock-bottom levels helps more of the portfolio’s returns stay in your pocket and compounds over time. The mix of Vanguard and Schwab index products is doing what it should: delivering broad, rules-based exposure at minimal cost. This is one area where the portfolio is very well aligned with best practices for long-term investing and doesn’t need much tweaking.
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