Growth focused US large cap portfolio with strong tech tilt and impressively low ongoing costs
Report created on Apr 10, 2026Risk 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
-
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 72.60% -
FX Fidelity 500 Index Fund
FXAIX - US3159117502 27.40%
The portfolio is very simple: roughly three quarters in a NASDAQ 100 ETF and the rest in a broad US large cap index fund. That means almost everything is in big US companies, with a big lean toward growth and tech from the NASDAQ piece and a more balanced exposure from the S&P 500 fund. A concentrated two-holding structure is easy to manage and understand, but it naturally scores low on diversification because there are few building blocks. The key takeaway is that this setup is designed for growth-oriented stock exposure, not for spreading risk across many asset types, regions, or styles.
Growth
Historically, $1,000 grew to about $2,138 over the period, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.91%. CAGR is like your “average speed” over the whole journey, smoothing out the bumps. That slightly beat the US market and clearly beat the global market, which is a strong result. The tradeoff was a max drawdown of about -32%, meaning at one point the portfolio was down almost a third from its peak. It then took over a year to fully recover. This pattern fits a growth-tilted approach: strong upside when markets run, but deeper falls when they correct. Past performance, though, can’t guarantee future results.
Projection
The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which basically replays many possible futures using patterns from historical returns and volatility. It ran 1,000 different “what if” paths over 15 years for a $1,000 investment. The median outcome lands around $2,757, with a wide middle range from roughly $1,700 to $4,400, and extreme paths stretching lower and much higher. This shows both the growth potential and the uncertainty. The average simulated annual return was about 8.2%, lower than the recent historical CAGR, reminding that future returns may be more modest. Monte Carlo relies on past data, so it can’t foresee structural changes or rare shocks that haven’t happened before.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of the portfolio is in stocks, with no bonds, cash-like holdings, or alternative assets. That pure-equity approach maximizes exposure to long-term economic growth but also leaves the portfolio fully exposed to stock market downturns. Many broad benchmarks mix in bonds or other stabilizers, which usually soften drawdowns but lower expected returns. Here, the decision is clearly tilted toward growth over stability, which aligns with the “Growth Investor” risk classification. The tradeoff is bigger swings in value, especially during recessions or rate shocks. Anyone using a setup like this usually pairs it with cash reserves or safer assets elsewhere, rather than relying on this portfolio for short-term needs.
Sectors
- Technology 46%
- Telecommunications 15%
- Consumer Discretionary 9%
- Consumer Staples 8%
- Health Care 6%
- Industrials 5%
- Financials 4%
- Consumer Discretionary 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Energy 1%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector-wise, the portfolio is dominated by technology at around 46%, with additional exposure to telecommunications and consumer-related areas. This is much more tech-heavy than a typical broad market index, mainly due to the big NASDAQ allocation. Tech and related growth sectors tend to be more sensitive to interest rate changes and sentiment about future earnings, which can amplify volatility. On the plus side, this tilt has powered strong historical performance when innovation-driven companies led markets. The presence of smaller slices in health care, industrials, financials, utilities, and others adds some balance, but the core story is still a tech-led growth profile rather than an evenly spread sector mix.
Regions
- North America 98%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geographically, the portfolio is almost entirely tied to North America, with about 98% exposure, and just a sliver in developed Europe. This aligns closely with a US-based investor focus and has matched or beaten global benchmarks in recent years, which shows up in the performance numbers. However, it also means very limited diversification across different economies, currencies, and policy environments. If the US market goes through a long rough patch while other regions hold up better, this portfolio would feel the full brunt of that. The upside is simplicity and familiarity; the tradeoff is missing out on the risk-spreading benefits of broader global allocation.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 50%
- Large-cap 36%
- Mid-cap 13%
By market capitalization, the portfolio is heavily skewed toward mega-cap and large-cap companies, with only a modest 13% in mid-caps and essentially no small caps. Mega-caps are the very largest firms, which tend to be more stable and widely followed, though they can still move sharply. Compared to a market that includes more small and mid-sized firms, this tilt reduces exposure to the “small size” premium that sometimes boosts returns but also raises volatility. The upside is cleaner, blue-chip-heavy exposure. The downside is less participation in earlier-stage growth stories and potentially more dependence on the fortunes of a tight group of giants that dominate index weights.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 6.29%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 5.53%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 4.03%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.33%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 2.56%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.54%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
WM Walmart Inc. Common Stock 2.49%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 2.46%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.36%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.17%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Top 10 total 33.76%
Looking through the holdings, a big chunk of risk is tied to a handful of mega-cap names like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Tesla, Alphabet, Meta, and Broadcom. Several of these appear through both the NASDAQ fund and the S&P 500 fund, creating hidden overlap where the same company is effectively held twice. Because only top-10 ETF holdings are used, true overlap is probably higher. This concentration in a few giants boosts participation in their success, but it also means portfolio swings will heavily track how these specific companies perform. Anyone wanting more balance might consider how comfortable they are with that top-heavy exposure.
Factors
Looking at factor exposure, the portfolio shows low value and low yield, meaning it leans away from cheaper, higher-dividend stocks and more toward growth-style companies. Factor exposure is like the mix of “ingredients” driving returns: value, size, momentum, quality, low volatility, and yield. Size is also low, confirming the tilt toward large and mega caps instead of smaller companies. Momentum, quality, and low volatility sit near neutral, so they’re roughly market-like, not strong tilts. This setup tends to do well when growth and large caps are in favor, but it can lag when value, smaller companies, or high-dividend names lead. It’s a coherent growth posture rather than a factor-balanced approach.
Risk contribution
-
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 72.60% 78.4% -
Fidelity 500 Index Fund
Weight: 27.40% 21.6%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the overall ups and downs, which can differ from the simple weight. Here, the NASDAQ ETF makes up about 72.6% of the portfolio but contributes over 78% of the risk, with a risk/weight ratio above 1. That means it’s slightly more volatile relative to its size and is the main driver of portfolio swings. The S&P 500 fund, at 27.4% weight, contributes only about 21.6% of risk, acting as a stabilizer in comparison. This concentrated risk in one fund is not inherently bad, but it does mean that changing that single position’s size would materially alter the portfolio’s volatility profile.
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.
On the risk/return chart, the portfolio sits right on or very near the efficient frontier, meaning that for the risk being taken, the return is close to the best achievable using just these two holdings. The Sharpe ratio, which measures return per unit of risk above the risk-free rate, is 0.59, while an optimal reweighting could push it up to about 0.84 with slightly lower volatility and a similar return. The min-variance and max-Sharpe portfolios are effectively the same here, showing there’s limited benefit from rebalancing between just two highly correlated funds. Structurally, the allocation is already efficient; any big changes would be more about risk profile or diversification goals than fixing inefficiency.
Dividends
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.90%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.61%
The blended dividend yield is modest, around 0.61%, with the S&P 500 fund yielding about 0.90% and the NASDAQ ETF around 0.50%. Dividends are cash payments from companies, and over long periods they can meaningfully contribute to total return, especially when reinvested. In this case, the low yield reflects the growth focus: many tech and growth firms reinvest profits instead of paying large dividends. That can be attractive for investors who care more about capital appreciation than current income. It does mean this portfolio is not optimized for generating cash flow; it’s geared toward price growth, with dividends playing a relatively small supporting role in overall returns.
Ongoing product costs
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.02%
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.11%
Costs are a standout strength here. The total ongoing fee (TER) is about 0.11%, with the S&P 500 fund extremely cheap at 0.02% and the NASDAQ ETF at 0.15%. TER, or Total Expense Ratio, is the annual percentage cut taken to run the fund. Keeping this low is like reducing friction in a machine — more of the market’s return stays in your pocket. These fees are competitive even against other low-cost index products and support better long-term compounding. Over decades, the difference between 0.10% and, say, 0.50% can add up to a substantial amount. This cost profile is a clear positive and very much aligned with best practices.
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!
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