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 structure is very focused but intentional: five equity ETFs, no bonds or cash, and a clear tilt toward small-cap value and quality. Two specialist funds in U.S. and international small value each sit at 24%, providing a strong style tilt. Broad total market funds at 20% each keep exposure to the wider global market, while a 12% slice in a U.S. quality ETF adds a stability and profitability screen. Having everything in stocks creates meaningful growth potential but also higher swings. This design suits someone who wants equity-like upside, is comfortable seeing their account move around, and prefers tilting toward proven long-term factors rather than holding only plain broad-market exposure.
Historically, $1,000 grew to about $2,093, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.41%. CAGR is like your “average speed” over the whole journey, smoothing out the bumps. That slightly lagged the U.S. market’s 14.38% but beat the global market’s 11.92%, which is a solid outcome for a diversified global tilt. The trade-off has been a deeper max drawdown of about -39% versus roughly -34% for both benchmarks, meaning bigger temporary losses at the worst point. Only 18 days made up 90% of returns, highlighting how a handful of strong days drive long-term results. Staying invested during rough patches is crucial for capturing those key recovery bursts.
All assets here are stocks, so the portfolio is 100% equity with no explicit ballast from bonds or cash. An equity-only mix is typical for growth-oriented investors with long horizons and a higher risk tolerance. The benefit is maximal exposure to the long-term return engine of businesses worldwide. The trade-off is sharper drawdowns and more volatility, especially during recessions or market shocks. Compared with a classic “balanced” stock–bond mix, this structure will usually fall more in bad times but also recover faster in strong equity markets. Anyone using an all-equity mix generally pairs it with a strong emergency fund and a long time horizon.
Sector exposure is impressively well-spread: industrials, financials, and technology each hold meaningful but not dominant weights, with additional exposure to consumer areas, materials, health care, energy, and others. This broad spread is similar in spirit to widely followed benchmarks and is a strong indicator of healthy diversification. A 16% stake in technology gives growth participation without becoming a pure tech-heavy portfolio, which can be more sensitive to interest rates. Exposure to cyclicals like industrials and financials may lead to stronger performance in economic recoveries, while more defensive slices in health care and consumer staples help soften some downturns. Overall, sector balance looks thoughtfully aligned with diversified equity standards.
Geographic exposure is anchored in North America at 60%, with meaningful allocations to developed Europe and Japan plus smaller slices in other regions. This is somewhat U.S.-leaning but still more international than a typical U.S. investor who often holds 70–80% domestic. The spread across developed and emerging markets helps reduce the risk of any single region’s slowdown dominating outcomes. When the U.S. leads, the portfolio benefits, but there’s also room to gain from cycles where other regions outperform. This allocation is well-balanced and aligns closely with global standards, which can be reassuring for someone seeking broad economic diversification instead of a heavy home-country bias.
Market-cap exposure is distinctly tilted away from only the largest companies. Mid-caps and small-caps together make up over half the portfolio, while mega- and large-caps account for about a third, plus a small micro-cap slice. This is very different from typical benchmarks that are dominated by mega- and large-caps. Smaller companies often offer higher expected returns over long periods but come with more volatility and sometimes bigger drawdowns. The micro-cap exposure adds an extra bit of spice and potential, but also unpredictability. This structure is well-suited to someone comfortable with bumpier short-term rides in exchange for leaning into historically rewarded size premiums.
Looking through ETF top holdings, a handful of mega-cap names—Apple, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla, and Taiwan Semiconductor—show up across multiple funds. That creates some hidden concentration in the biggest global leaders even though no single stock is directly owned. Because this view only covers ETF top 10s, the actual overlap is likely higher across the full portfolios. This kind of overlap is common with total market funds and is not inherently bad; it just means a portion of performance will be driven by how these large tech and growth names behave. The smaller-value and quality tilts still help balance that mega-cap influence.
Factor exposure is where this mix really stands out. There are strong tilts to value, size, and quality—three characteristics that academic research has linked to higher long-term returns. Value means buying companies that look cheap relative to fundamentals; size emphasizes smaller firms; quality prefers profitable, stable businesses. Momentum and low volatility exposures are moderate, not extreme. This combination typically leads to better results in environments where out-of-favor stocks rebound and fundamentals matter, but it can lag when expensive growth stocks dominate. Factor signals cover a bit more than half the holdings, which is solid. Overall, the design intentionally harnesses multiple proven drivers of return.
Risk contribution shows how much each holding adds to the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. The U.S. small-cap value ETF, at 24% weight, contributes about 28% of total risk, slightly more than its share. The international small value ETF pulls less risk than its weight, while the total market funds and the quality ETF sit close to proportional. The top three positions together drive nearly 70% of risk, reflecting their size and volatility. That’s still a reasonable concentration level for a five-holding portfolio. If someone wanted to smooth volatility further, shifting a small slice from the most aggressive piece toward broader funds could help.
Correlation measures how assets move together, from -1 (opposite) to +1 (in lockstep). Highly correlated holdings reduce diversification benefits because they tend to rise and fall at the same time. Here, the U.S. small-cap value ETF and the U.S. quality ETF are highly correlated, meaning they often react similarly to market moves even though they target different factors. That’s normal within a single country’s equity market. Diversification benefits mainly come from blending U.S. with international and mixing styles and sizes. It’s helpful to remember that in big global sell-offs, correlations often spike, so even diversified portfolios can feel like “everything is dropping” at once.
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 risk–return analysis shows the current portfolio with a 13.60% expected return and 20.02% volatility, giving a Sharpe ratio of 0.58. The Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk—higher is better. The optimal mix of these same holdings reaches a Sharpe of 0.75 with slightly lower risk, and a same-risk optimized version could boost expected return to around 15.30%. That means the current allocation sits below the efficient frontier, which is the curve of best achievable risk/return using existing ingredients. In plain terms, the mix is solid but not fully “tuned.” Reweighting the same ETFs could improve the trade-off without adding new products.
The blended dividend yield of about 2.18% provides a modest but meaningful income stream on top of potential price appreciation. Yields are higher on the international and small value funds, around 3%, while total market and quality funds sit closer to 1.2%. Dividends can help cushion returns during flat or choppy markets, especially when reinvested to buy more shares at lower prices. This level of yield fits well with a growth-focused equity strategy: not ultra-high, which can signal risk, but comfortably above zero. For long-term savers, automatically reinvesting dividends is usually a powerful way to compound returns over the years.
The overall expense ratio of about 0.13% is impressively low for such a factor-tilted, globally diversified mix. TER, or total expense ratio, is the annual fee charged by the funds—like a small haircut off returns each year. Keeping this drag minimal is one of the most reliable ways to improve long-term outcomes, because every dollar not paid in fees stays invested and compounds. The broad Vanguard funds are ultra-cheap, and even the more specialized Avantis fund is reasonably priced for what it offers. Cost-wise, this setup is firmly in best-practice territory and strongly supports better long-term performance without needing any changes.
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