High income tilted US equity portfolio with strong mega cap tech overlap and efficient risk profile
Report created on Sep 7, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 40.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 20.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
SCHG - US8085243009 20.00% -
JE JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
JEPQ - US46654Q2030 10.00% -
QQ NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
QQQI - US78433H6751 10.00%
This portfolio is a concentrated all‑equity mix built entirely from five US‑listed ETFs. Around 40% sits in a broad S&P 500 tracker, 40% is split between dividend and large‑cap growth funds, and 20% goes to two high‑income option‑based Nasdaq strategies. So structurally it combines a core index, a quality dividend sleeve, a growth tilt, and two explicit income funds linked to the Nasdaq 100. This composition keeps things simple but focused: one country, one asset class, and large established companies. The trade‑off is a relatively low diversification score, because there is limited exposure beyond US stocks and a lot of common underlying names across these funds.
Growth
Over the observed period, $1,000 grew to about $1,583, giving a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) near 19.4%. CAGR is like your average driving speed over a road trip, smoothing out bumps to show the typical yearly pace. This slightly lagged both the US and global equity benchmarks by about 1 percentage point per year. The worst peak‑to‑trough fall, or max drawdown, was roughly -18.9%, very similar to the benchmarks, and recovered within about three months. That pattern suggests the portfolio has behaved broadly like a mainstream equity basket, with strong returns and typical stock‑market level downside, rather than behaving wildly differently from “the market.”
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection uses many simulated paths to see how $1,000 might evolve over 15 years, based on past return and volatility patterns. Think of it as rolling the dice 1,000 times using historical stats, then looking at the range of outcomes. The median result lands around $2,664, with most simulations falling between about $1,799 and $4,059. There are also more extreme but less likely outcomes on both sides. Importantly, this is not a forecast or promise—future markets can behave differently from the past, especially over long periods—but it does illustrate that historically similar risk‑return characteristics have produced a wide, but generally positive, set of outcomes.
Asset classes
- Stocks 98%
- Not classified 2%
Asset‑class wise, the picture is very clean: about 98% in stocks and 2% in “not classified,” where the data provider simply doesn’t assign a bucket. That makes this effectively an all‑equity portfolio, with no meaningful bonds or cash in the mix. All‑equity allocations tend to have higher long‑term growth potential but also sharper short‑term swings. The “balanced” risk label here comes more from the style mix—core, growth, dividend, and option‑overlay income—rather than from a blend of stocks and bonds. This structure aligns closely with mainstream equity benchmarks, but with less cushion from traditionally steadier assets when markets drop.
Sectors
- Technology 39%
- Health Care 11%
- Telecommunications 10%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Financials 9%
- Consumer Staples 7%
- Industrials 7%
- Energy 5%
- Utilities 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Real Estate 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Sector allocation is heavily tilted to technology at 39%, with the rest spread across health care, telecom, consumer areas, financials, industrials, energy, and small slices in utilities, materials, and real estate. A tech share near 40% is higher than many broad global indices, which typically have a substantial but slightly lower tech weighting. Tech‑heavy portfolios often benefit in growth‑friendly, low‑rate environments but can feel more volatile when interest rates rise or when sentiment shifts away from high‑growth companies. The presence of dividend and income‑focused ETFs helps keep exposure to defensive sectors like staples and utilities, but the tech concentration still stands out as a core driver.
Regions
- North America 99%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
Geographically, this portfolio is almost a pure North America play, with 99% allocation there. That lines up well with the underlying ETFs, which are primarily US‑focused. Many global equity benchmarks give something closer to 60% to North America and 40% to the rest of the world, so this portfolio notably overweights the US relative to a world index. This alignment with US benchmarks has worked very well in recent years, as US large caps have outperformed many other regions. The flip side is that economic, political, and currency developments in the US will have an outsized influence on returns, with little offset from other regions.
Market capitalization
- Large-cap 39%
- Mega-cap 39%
- Mid-cap 18%
- Small-cap 1%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
By market capitalization, the portfolio leans strongly into the very largest companies: about 39% in mega‑caps and 39% in large‑caps, with modest mid‑cap and minimal small‑cap exposure. This is characteristic of index and large‑cap growth strategies, where the biggest names dominate weights. Heavy mega‑cap exposure often means lower business‑risk per company—these are established firms with global footprints—but also higher concentration risk, because a handful of stocks can drive a large share of performance. The relatively small mid‑ and small‑cap slice means less sensitivity to smaller, more domestically focused businesses, and a closer tie to how big brand‑name companies are doing.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 6.76%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc. 5.88%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 4.32%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.31%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.46%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.41%
Part of fund(s):- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.30%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 1.81%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MU Micron Technology Inc 1.72%
Part of fund(s):- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.22%
Part of fund(s):- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 32.18%
This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.
The look‑through view shows that a few mega‑cap names appear repeatedly across your ETFs. NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, both Alphabet share classes, Broadcom, Meta, Micron, and Tesla are all sizeable combined positions, with NVIDIA alone around 6.8% and Apple near 5.9%. Because these companies show up in multiple funds, the true exposure is higher than it might seem from a simple ETF list. This overlapping exposure is not unusual in US large‑cap portfolios and aligns closely with common benchmarks, which are also dominated by these names. It does mean that news around these particular companies will disproportionately influence the portfolio.
Factors
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.
On the factor side, there’s a very low size exposure, plus high momentum and high low‑volatility tilts, while value and yield sit near neutral. Factor exposure is like checking which “personality traits” your portfolio has—momentum, value, quality, and so on—that research links to returns. A high momentum tilt suggests a preference for stocks that have been recent winners, which can help in strong, trending markets but can hurt in sharp reversals. The low size exposure reflects the focus on large and mega caps rather than smaller companies. The high low‑volatility tilt is interesting: it indicates a tendency toward stocks that historically swing less than the market, potentially smoothing some of the ride.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 40.00% 41.1% -
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Weight: 20.00% 25.8% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 20.00% 11.5% -
NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
Weight: 10.00% 11.2% -
JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
Weight: 10.00% 10.3%
Risk contribution shows how much each ETF drives overall ups and downs, which can differ from its simple weight. Here, the S&P 500 ETF is 40% of the portfolio but contributes about 41% of total risk, so it’s almost one‑for‑one. The large‑cap growth ETF is 20% by weight but nearly 26% of risk, signalling it’s more volatile than the average holding. The dividend ETF, at 20% weight but only about 11.5% of risk, acts as a stabilizing anchor. The two Nasdaq income funds together contribute about 21.5% of risk on 20% weight. Overall, the top three positions drive roughly 78% of total risk, which is fairly concentrated but consistent with their large weights.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationJPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETFNEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF
-
High correlationSchwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETFVanguard S&P 500 ETF
The correlation view highlights two pairs that move almost identically: the JPMorgan and NEOS Nasdaq income ETFs, and the Schwab large‑cap growth ETF with the S&P 500 ETF. Correlation measures how often assets move together—1 means they generally rise and fall in sync. Highly correlated holdings can limit diversification, because when one drops, the other is likely to drop too. In this portfolio, the paired funds basically echo each other’s patterns, just with different income or growth profiles. That’s not inherently negative—it keeps the structure clean and consistent—but it does mean the portfolio’s diversification comes more from mixing income, dividend, and growth styles than from fundamentally different return streams.
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 analysis suggests the current mix is already using these five ETFs in an efficient way. The portfolio’s Sharpe ratio—a measure of return per unit of risk—sits around 1.01, while the statistically “optimal” combination of the same holdings reaches about 1.3 with slightly lower volatility. The minimum‑variance mix still shows a strong Sharpe above 1.2. Since the report notes the current portfolio lies on or very near the efficient frontier, it indicates that, given these ingredients, the trade‑off between risk and return is well‑balanced. In other words, without adding new holdings, there isn’t obvious unused diversification hiding in the background.
Dividends
- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF 11.30%
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 14.00%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.00%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.40%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.00%
- Weighted yield (per year) 3.61%
The overall dividend yield is about 3.6%, noticeably higher than a plain S&P 500 tracker. This is driven largely by the two high‑income Nasdaq funds, with headline yields around 11–14%, plus a solid 3% from the dedicated US dividend ETF. The growth and S&P 500 funds add smaller yields. Dividend yield represents the annual cash payout as a percentage of the current value, and it can be a meaningful component of total return, especially when reinvested. Option‑based income strategies often distribute higher cash flows funded partly by option premiums, so their payouts behave differently from traditional corporate dividends tied solely to company profits.
Ongoing product costs
- JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF 0.35%
- NEOS Nasdaq 100 High Income ETF 0.68%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.04%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.14%
Total ongoing costs, measured by the total expense ratio (TER), come to about 0.14% per year. TER is the annual fee charged by funds to cover management and operating expenses. That blended cost is impressively low for a portfolio that includes specialized income strategies, which individually charge 0.35% and 0.68%. The core index and Schwab funds help pull the average down with TERs between 0.03% and 0.06%. Keeping costs this low supports better long‑term outcomes because fees compound too: every dollar not spent on expenses stays invested. Relative to many actively managed or high‑yield products, this fee level is a structural strength of the portfolio.
What next?
Ready to invest in this portfolio?
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
Create your own report?
Join our community!
Compare your holdings
How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?
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