High octane tech focused growth portfolio with strong recent returns and concentrated risk exposure

Report created on May 3, 2026

Risk profile Info

5/7
Growth
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

2/5
Low Diversity
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio is fully invested in stocks, mixing two broad index ETFs with a set of individual companies. Around a quarter sits in a total US stock market ETF and a small slice in a large tech-heavy ETF, while the rest is in single names, several of which carry double‑digit weights. That creates a structure where a few positions can strongly influence results. A portfolio built this way can move very differently from broad indexes because company‑specific news matters more. The mix shows a clear tilt toward high‑growth, innovative businesses rather than a spread across many slower, steadier companies. This concentrated growth style explains much of the portfolio’s behavior in other sections.

Growth Info

Over the measured period, $1,000 grew to about $1,850, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) near 34%. CAGR is like average speed on a road trip: it smooths the ups and downs into a single yearly growth number. That’s much higher than both the US and global market benchmarks, which were around 18% per year. The trade‑off was a deeper maximum drawdown of about -29%, versus roughly -17% to -19% for the benchmarks. Drawdown measures the worst peak‑to‑trough slide, showing how rough the ride got. Only 14 days made up 90% of returns, which is typical of volatile, growth‑oriented portfolios where a handful of strong days drive most of the gains.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection uses the past behavior of the portfolio to simulate many possible future paths. Think of it as running 1,000 alternate timelines where returns bounce around differently each year based on historical volatility and return patterns. After 15 years, the “middle of the pack” outcome for $1,000 lands around $2,739, with a wide range from roughly $946 to $7,659 between the 5th and 95th percentiles. The median annualized return across all simulations is about 8%. This shows that even with strong historical returns, the future can vary a lot, especially for an all‑equity, growth‑tilted portfolio. And as always, these are just statistical projections, not promises.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Every holding here is an equity, so the asset class split is 100% stocks and 0% in bonds or cash. Asset classes are broad buckets like stocks, bonds, and cash that tend to behave differently in various market environments. A single‑asset‑class portfolio maximizes exposure to that bucket’s potential return, but also fully shares in its volatility. Compared with common diversified portfolios that mix in bonds or cash, this structure leans heavily into growth potential over stability. This clean, equity‑only setup keeps things simple but also means that any cushioning effect from steadier asset classes during market downturns is absent by design.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    53%
  • Telecommunications
    18%
  • Industrials
    10%
  • Health Care
    7%
  • Financials
    4%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    3%
  • Consumer Staples
    2%
  • Energy
    1%
  • Utilities
    1%
  • Real Estate
    1%
  • Basic Materials
    1%

Sector‑wise, the portfolio is dominated by technology at 53%, with telecommunications at 18% and the rest spread thinly across industrials, health care, and several smaller areas. Many broad equity benchmarks have tech as their largest sector, but usually not to this degree, so this is clearly a tech‑centric setup. When technology and related areas are in favor, such a tilt can drive strong outperformance, as seen in the recent results. The flip side is that sector‑specific shocks—like changes in interest rates, regulation, or tech spending—can hit harder when more than half the portfolio lives in one broad segment of the market.

Regions Info

  • North America
    94%
  • Europe Developed
    5%
  • No data
    1%

Geographically, about 94% of the portfolio’s equity exposure is in North America, with only around 5% in developed Europe and a small remainder unclassified. Geography matters because different regions face different currencies, regulations, and economic cycles. Relative to a global equity benchmark that spreads more widely across the world, this portfolio is strongly anchored to one region. That concentration has helped over a decade when US stocks did very well, but it also means portfolio outcomes are tightly linked to the fortunes of one main market and its currency, rather than being balanced across multiple economic blocs.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    45%
  • Large-cap
    37%
  • Mid-cap
    15%
  • Small-cap
    2%
  • Micro-cap
    1%

Market capitalization, or “market cap,” is the total value of a company’s shares and is often grouped into mega, large, mid, small, and micro‑cap segments. Here, mega‑caps and large‑caps together make up about 82%, with mid‑caps around 15% and only a small slice in smaller companies. This tilt toward bigger firms is reasonably aligned with broad benchmarks that are weighted by company size. Large and mega‑cap stocks often have more stable business models and deeper liquidity, which can moderate risk somewhat. The mid‑ and small‑cap exposure still adds some extra growth potential and volatility, but it’s not the dominant driver of this portfolio.

True holdings Info

  • Advanced Micro Devices Inc
    15.90%
  • Monolithic Power Systems Inc
    11.60%
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    9.14%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Direct holding 8.40%
  • DigitalOcean Holdings Inc
    7.50%
  • Lockheed Martin Corporation
    7.50%
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    5.22%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Direct holding 4.50%
  • Novo Nordisk A/S
    4.50%
  • Applied Materials Inc
    2.90%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    2.21%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Clear Secure Inc
    2.00%
  • Top 10 total 68.48%

Looking through the ETFs into their top holdings, the largest exposures are mainly the individual stocks you hold directly, such as AMD and Monolithic Power, with some overlap from Alphabet and Meta appearing both directly and via ETFs. Overlap matters because it can quietly increase exposure to a single company beyond the visible direct weight. Here, Alphabet’s total exposure climbs to about 9.1% and Meta’s to about 5.2% once ETF slices are added. The analysis only covers ETF top‑10 holdings, so total overlap might be understated. Still, the picture shows that company‑specific risk is concentrated in a handful of names, not spread evenly.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Low
Data availability: 73%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 100%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Very high
Data availability: 73%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Very high
Data availability: 68%
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 shows how the portfolio tilts toward characteristics like value, size, momentum, quality, low volatility, and yield—think of them as underlying “flavors” of risk and return. This portfolio has very high momentum (82%) and very high quality (83%), combined with very low size (12%) and low value (30%). High momentum means many holdings have been recent winners, which can help in trending markets but may hurt if trends reverse sharply. High quality implies strong balance sheets or earnings stability, which can be a helpful offset. The low size score shows a tilt away from smaller firms, echoing the market‑cap data, and low value indicates a preference for growth‑style, higher‑valuation companies.

Risk contribution Info

  • Advanced Micro Devices Inc
    Weight: 15.90%
    27.5%
  • Monolithic Power Systems Inc
    Weight: 11.60%
    20.1%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Weight: 27.30%
    15.1%
  • DigitalOcean Holdings Inc
    Weight: 7.50%
    10.9%
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    Weight: 8.40%
    5.7%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 79.2%

Risk contribution measures how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ a lot from simple weight. Here, AMD is about 16% of the portfolio but adds roughly 27% of total risk, and Monolithic Power is about 12% of weight yet 20% of risk. Together with the broad US ETF, the top three positions contribute over 60% of portfolio risk. That means the day‑to‑day experience of the portfolio is heavily shaped by just a few names, especially the more volatile ones. In contrast, the total market ETF has a lower risk‑to‑weight ratio, acting more as a stabilizer relative to the concentrated single stocks.

Redundant positions Info

  • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    High correlation

Correlation looks at how investments move relative to each other, on a scale from -1 to +1, where +1 means they move almost in lockstep. The strongest identified relationship here is between the tech‑heavy ETF and the total US market ETF, which move almost identically. Highly correlated holdings provide similar performance patterns, so they don’t add much diversification even if they’re different tickers. In this case, both ETFs reinforce broad US equity exposure rather than adding distinct behavior. That’s not necessarily a problem, but it means the portfolio’s diversification mainly comes from differences between the broad ETFs and the individual, more idiosyncratic company positions.

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 risk‑return chart compares the current mix with an “efficient frontier,” which shows the best return achievable for each risk level using only your existing holdings in different weights. The portfolio’s Sharpe ratio—a measure of return per unit of risk—is 1.11, while the maximum Sharpe combination using these same holdings is much higher at 2.36. The current point sits well below the frontier at its risk level, meaning that, based on historical data, a different weighting of these same positions could have produced a better trade‑off between risk and return. This is about allocation choices, not adding or removing specific investments.

Dividends Info

  • Applied Materials Inc 0.50%
  • Alphabet Inc Class C 0.20%
  • Lockheed Martin Corporation 2.60%
  • Meta Platforms Inc. 0.30%
  • Monolithic Power Systems Inc 0.40%
  • Novo Nordisk A/S 4.20%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.40%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.10%
  • Clear Secure Inc 1.00%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 0.82%

The portfolio’s overall dividend yield is modest at about 0.82%, well below many income‑focused strategies and slightly below broad US equity averages. Yield is the cash income from dividends relative to the portfolio’s value. Most holdings here are growth‑oriented, with lower payouts and more emphasis on reinvesting earnings, which fits the portfolio’s return pattern. A few names, like Novo Nordisk and Lockheed Martin, offer higher yields and contribute more to the income side, but they’re a minority. In practice, this setup means most of the return historically has come from price movement rather than cash distributions.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.02%

The ongoing fund costs, measured by TER (Total Expense Ratio), are very low. The total market ETF charges about 0.03% per year and the tech‑heavy ETF about 0.20%, leading to an overall blended TER near 0.02% given your weights and direct stocks (which have no fund TER). Costs matter because they come off returns every year, and even small percentages compound over time. This cost profile is impressively lean and compares favorably with typical active funds. It gives the portfolio a structural advantage: less drag from fees means more of whatever returns the market delivers stay in the portfolio over the long run.

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