Roast mode 🔥

Tech rocket with three engines and no emergency exits pretending to be a diversified portfolio

Report created on Apr 18, 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

This “portfolio” is basically three giant tech posters on the wall with some ETF stickers slapped around them. Broadcom 17.3%, Microsoft 14.3%, NVIDIA 12.7% — those three alone are almost half the thing. Then you double-dip with QQQ, a couple of Nasdaq income wrappers, and the S&P 500, which just re-introduce the same names you already own. It looks diversified at a quick glance, but under the hood it’s one big bet wearing different jerseys. The takeaway: this isn’t broad exposure, it’s a concentrated growth rocket with a few side characters thrown in so it doesn’t feel quite as scary.

Growth Info

The past performance is pure dopamine: $1,000 turning into $2,025 in just over two years, with a 37.9% CAGR. That’s “tell-your-friends” territory, easily crushing both US and global markets. But notice the price of that joyride: a ~25% max drawdown in a short window and only 16 days generating 90% of returns. CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is like your average speed on a road trip — looks smooth, hides all the potholes. Past data is yesterday’s weather: useful, not psychic. The meaning here: you’re getting rewarded for taking real risk, and at some point the coin flips the other way.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo simulation is the nerdy crystal ball here. It runs 1,000 random paths using past volatility and returns to see where $1,000 might land in 15 years. Median guess: around $2,763, with a wide “normal” range of about $1,842–$4,266 and a full potential spread from roughly $971 to $7,682. Translation: most outcomes are better than cash, but the downside scenarios are very real. Simulated 8.2% annualized is way tamer than your recent ~38%, and that’s the point — the model assumes gravity eventually works. Simulations are like flight simulators: good for stress-testing, not an actual guarantee of a smooth landing.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset classes: 100% stocks, 0% anything else. This is not “balanced,” it’s “I do not believe in seatbelts.” No bonds, no cash buffer, no other diversifiers — just full send into equities. That’s fine if the time horizon is long and the stomach is strong, but let’s not pretend this is a steady-income, sleep-like-a-baby setup. When markets party, this will be fun. When they don’t, this will hurt, fast. General takeaway: being all-in on stocks is like driving in sport mode all year — exciting, but don’t act surprised when you feel every bump.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    59%
  • Telecommunications
    18%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    7%
  • Financials
    5%
  • Consumer Staples
    4%
  • Real Estate
    3%
  • Health Care
    2%
  • Industrials
    1%
  • Utilities
    1%

Sector-wise, it’s tech worship with a side of “barely anything else.” About 59% in technology, 18% in telecom-adjacent growth, and then tiny scraps for consumer, financials, real estate, and the rest. This isn’t a balanced meal; it’s an energy drink and three espressos. When tech and growth names are in favor, life is great. When they fall out of fashion, everything in this portfolio catches the same cold at once. Takeaway: heavy sector tilts can work brilliantly for a while, but they turn into “all your eggs in one business cycle” when that theme rolls over.

Regions Info

  • North America
    99%

Geography: 99% North America. So this is basically the “USA or nothing” strategy. The rest of the world — where a huge chunk of global economic growth and markets sits — is just… ignored. That’s fine if the thesis is “America will always dominate,” but if US valuations get stretched or other regions lead for a decade, this setup misses it entirely. Think of it as only eating at one restaurant because it’s been good so far. The takeaway: geographic diversification reduces the odds that one country’s problems become your whole portfolio’s problem.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    77%
  • Large-cap
    19%
  • Mid-cap
    4%

Market cap exposure is mega-cap royalty: 77% mega, 19% large, 4% mid. So you’re basically renting a room in the same skyscraper as the market’s biggest names and ignoring the rest of the city. That keeps things tied to the big index darlings but leaves out a lot of smaller companies that sometimes drive future growth (and sometimes blow up, to be fair). This is a “blue-chip fan club” more than a broad exploration. The upside: it tends to skew toward higher quality and stability. The downside: you’re chained to whatever mood the mega-caps are in.

True holdings Info

  • Broadcom Inc
    18.27%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 17.32%
  • Microsoft Corporation
    15.94%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 14.34%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    15.23%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 12.69%
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    6.55%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 5.53%
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    4.77%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 3.82%
  • Netflix Inc
    3.86%
  • Visa Inc. Class A
    3.42%
  • Realty Income Corporation
    2.64%
  • Altria Group
    2.36%
  • Apple Inc
    2.13%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF
    • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
  • Top 10 total 75.17%

The look-through is basically a greatest-hits playlist on loop. Broadcom, Microsoft, and NVIDIA show up both as direct holdings and via ETFs, pushing total exposures to 18.3%, 15.9%, and 15.2%. Alphabet and Meta also get the double-treatment. Then Apple sneaks in only through ETFs with a 2.1% total weight, so you’re accidentally in the “I own big tech everything” club. Overlap being understated (only top 10 ETF holdings) just means the real concentration is probably worse. The lesson: when you buy individual stars and the indices they dominate, you’re stacking exposure, not diversifying — it’s hidden leverage to the same theme.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Low
Data availability: 78%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 100%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 78%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Very high
Data availability: 70%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 95%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 88%

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 profile: absurdly high quality at 98% and almost no size exposure at 1%. Factors are the hidden ingredients — value, size, momentum, quality, yield, low vol — that explain behavior beyond just “stocks went up.” Here, the message is: “I want the cleanest, most profitable giants, forget the scrappy underdogs.” That quality tilt is actually the most grown-up thing in this whole setup; it can help in rough markets. But that microscopic size tilt screams “I like my risk flashy, not diversified.” Net takeaway: this portfolio handles quality risk well but makes no attempt to spread across different stock types.

Risk contribution Info

  • Broadcom Inc
    Weight: 17.32%
    32.8%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    Weight: 12.69%
    22.3%
  • Microsoft Corporation
    Weight: 14.34%
    10.2%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Weight: 7.25%
    6.0%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Weight: 9.91%
    5.8%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 77.2%

Risk contribution blows the cover: Broadcom, NVIDIA, and Microsoft together drive over 65% of the portfolio’s total risk, despite being about 44% of the weight. Risk contribution is basically “who’s actually shaking the roller coaster,” not just who’s sitting in the seats. Broadcom alone is 17.3% of the weight but 32.8% of the risk — that’s one stock doing main-character energy in all the wrong ways if it stumbles. General lesson: when a few names are punching way above their weight in risk, trimming them can dramatically change the ride without changing the cast too much.

Redundant positions Info

  • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
    Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF
    NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
    Invesco QQQ Trust
    Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
    High correlation

The correlation list is just a giant “yes, they all move together” meme. QQQ, the Nasdaq 100 ETF, the income-wrapped Nasdaq stuff, the S&P 500, and the growth ETF all basically dance to the same beat. Correlation means assets tend to move together — great on the way up, brutal in a crash. You don’t have multiple parachutes here; you have one big, stylish parachute stitched from slightly different fabrics. When the market tanks, this setup won’t politely offset itself — it’ll mostly fall as one. Takeaway: owning many flavors of the same thing is variety, not real diversification.

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 is brutal. Your current portfolio has a Sharpe ratio of 1.22 with 23.9% risk and 33.2% return. The “optimal” mix — using just your existing holdings, no new toys — hits a Sharpe of 2.75 with *higher* return (45.9%) and *lower* risk (16.3%). That’s like running a car with the handbrake half on. You’re sitting 27.6 percentage points below the frontier at this risk level, which is a polite way of saying: same ingredients, way worse recipe. Clear takeaway: even without changing what you own, just how much you own of each thing could dramatically improve the risk–return deal.

Dividends Info

  • Broadcom Inc 0.60%
  • Alphabet Inc Class A 0.20%
  • Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF 10.00%
  • Meta Platforms Inc. 0.30%
  • Altria Group 4.90%
  • Microsoft Corporation 0.80%
  • Realty Income Corporation 5.00%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.40%
  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 13.90%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
  • Starbucks Corporation 2.50%
  • Visa Inc. Class A 0.80%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
  • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares 0.40%
  • Domino's Pizza Inc Common Stock 1.90%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 2.13%

Dividend story: headline yield is about 2.13%, but that’s heavily juiced by the Nasdaq income ETFs throwing out 10–14% yields. Then the individual big growth names pay almost nothing, and a couple of classic income plays (Altria, Realty Income) try to look responsible. This is like putting hot sauce on plain rice and calling it a feast. High-yield wrapper products often just convert volatility and option premiums into cash flow — it feels nice, but it’s not free money. Core insight: cash yield is fine, but relying on synthetic high income from a concentrated growth engine can age badly when markets wobble.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Goldman Sachs Nasdaq-100 Core Premium Income ETF 0.29%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
  • NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 0.68%
  • Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Vanguard Growth Index Fund ETF Shares 0.04%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.08%

On costs, you somehow built a chaos portfolio with surprisingly sensible fees. Total TER around 0.08% is impressively low, helped a lot by the dirt-cheap Vanguard ETFs. Even the fancier income stuff is offset by the low-cost core. That’s like driving a sports car but paying compact-car insurance — unexpectedly reasonable. The roast: you stacked multiple very similar ETFs when one or two would probably do the job, so you’re not wasting money, just adding complexity for basically no benefit. Takeaway: costs are fine; the issue is structure, not what you’re paying.

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