This portfolio has only about 8 months of historical data, based on the youngest asset in the portfolio. Some metrics, projections, and AI insights may be less reliable and should be interpreted with caution.

Growth focused stock portfolio with strong quality tilt and pockets of concentrated single name risk

Report created on Mar 27, 2026

Risk profile Info

4/7
Balanced
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

3/5
Moderately Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

The portfolio is 100% in stocks, mixing broad ETFs with a long list of individual companies. Two core index ETFs together hold 16%, while the rest is spread across concentrated single stocks and a few thematic or regional funds. For a “balanced” risk label, this is actually an equity‑only setup, so short‑term swings can be meaningful. With roughly eight months of history, it’s too early to judge long‑term behavior, but the structure clearly leans toward growth and innovation rather than stability. The main takeaway is that this setup fits someone who can tolerate equity‑level volatility and is comfortable relying on stock market growth rather than bonds for risk dampening.

Growth Info

Over the ~8‑month period, $1,000 grew to about $1,014, a 2.09% annualized growth rate (CAGR is the “average speed” per year). This lagged both the broad US market (3.17%) and global market (6.51%) and came with a deeper max drawdown at -11.29% versus -6.99% for the US benchmark. Interestingly, 90% of returns came from just one day, showing how “lumpy” short‑term performance can be. With such a short sample, none of this proves a lasting pattern. The main message: results so far are modest and a bit bumpier than broad markets, but it’s simply too early to label this good or bad structurally.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

All capital is in one asset class: equities. That makes the portfolio simple and focused on long‑run growth, but it also removes the classic stabilizers like bonds or cash‑like holdings that often cushion big market drops. For many investors, mixing asset classes smooths the ride, because different assets don’t move together. Here, every dollar is exposed to stock market risk, so short‑term portfolio value is tightly linked to equity cycles. Relative to many “balanced” allocations that pair stocks with bonds, this is closer to a growth or aggressive profile. Anyone using a setup like this typically needs a longer time horizon and a strong tolerance for drawdowns.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    32%
  • Financials
    16%
  • Telecommunications
    15%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    11%
  • Health Care
    10%
  • Industrials
    9%
  • Utilities
    3%
  • Energy
    2%
  • Basic Materials
    2%
  • Consumer Staples
    1%

Sector exposure is tilted toward technology at 32%, with financials, telecom, and consumer‑related areas also playing noticeable roles. This tech‑heavy stance can benefit from innovation and productivity trends, but it usually comes with more sensitivity to interest rates, regulation, and sentiment shifts about growth. Some defensive sectors like utilities and consumer staples are present but small. Compared with broad market references, this mix is more growth‑oriented and less defensive. The implication: during strong growth cycles, this can perform very well, but during rate spikes or tech corrections, portfolio swings may be sharper than a more evenly spread sector allocation.

Regions Info

  • North America
    79%
  • Europe Developed
    9%
  • Asia Emerging
    6%
  • Japan
    2%
  • No data
    2%
  • Asia Developed
    2%
  • Australasia
    1%
  • Africa/Middle East
    1%

Geographically, about 79% sits in North America, with modest allocations to developed Europe and emerging Asia, plus small slices elsewhere. This is broadly aligned with many global equity benchmarks where North America is dominant, and that alignment is a positive sign for diversification against global standards. However, it still means outcomes are heavily tied to one economic bloc’s fortunes, policy shifts, and currency. The smaller allocations to other regions add some diversification but won’t fully offset a major North American downturn. For someone comfortable with that home‑region focus, this structure is reasonable, especially since it mirrors common global equity weights.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    59%
  • Large-cap
    26%
  • Mid-cap
    10%
  • Small-cap
    3%
  • Micro-cap
    1%

The portfolio leans strongly toward mega‑cap and large‑cap companies, together about 85%, with only modest exposure to mid, small, and micro caps. Large and mega caps tend to be more established, more liquid, and often less volatile than very small companies, which can help reduce some extremes. On the flip side, small and micro caps are where a lot of long‑term growth potential and diversification away from mega‑cap leadership can come from. With this mix, performance will likely rhyme with the big global leaders more than with smaller, niche companies. That’s a fairly standard, benchmark‑like structure with just a light tilt toward smaller names.

True holdings Info

  • Amazon.com Inc
    5.08%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 4.80%
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    5.05%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 4.80%
  • Microsoft Corporation
    4.40%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 4.00%
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    4.19%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 4.00%
  • Palantir Technologies Inc.
    3.47%
    Part of fund(s):
    • ARK Space Exploration & Innovation ETF
    • Global X Defense Tech ETF
    Direct holding 3.20%
  • Berkshire Hathaway Inc
    3.33%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Direct holding 3.20%
  • AbbVie Inc
    3.20%
  • Crowdstrike Holdings Inc
    3.20%
  • Robinhood Markets Inc
    3.20%
  • Eli Lilly and Company
    3.20%
  • Top 10 total 38.31%

The look‑through shows that several big names appear both directly and inside ETFs: Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, Meta, and Palantir. For example, Amazon’s total exposure is 5.08% versus a 4.80% direct weight, and Microsoft rises from 4.00% direct to 4.40% total. This creates extra hidden concentration because the same companies may drive returns across multiple positions. Coverage is incomplete (only ETF top‑10s are used), so actual overlap is likely higher. The useful takeaway: even though the portfolio looks very diversified by line items, risk and returns are more tied to a relatively small group of familiar large growth names than the position count suggests.

Factors Info

Value
Preference for undervalued stocks
Low
Data availability: 74%
Size
Exposure to smaller companies
Very low
Data availability: 100%
Momentum
Exposure to recently outperforming stocks
Low
Data availability: 70%
Quality
Preference for financially healthy companies
Very high
Data availability: 68%
Yield
Preference for dividend-paying stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 65%
Low Volatility
Preference for stable, lower-risk stocks
Neutral
Data availability: 94%

Factor exposure shows a very low tilt to size and a very high tilt to quality. “Factors” are characteristics that explain why groups of stocks behave a certain way over time; think of them as return drivers like “cheap vs. expensive,” “big vs. small,” or “stable vs. volatile.” A very low size score means a strong lean toward larger companies. The very high quality score points to firms with stronger balance sheets, profitability, or earnings stability. Historically, quality has often helped during rough markets, while large‑cap bias can mute some extremes. With only eight months of data, this shouldn’t be over‑interpreted, but the construction clearly favors strong, established businesses over speculative names overall.

Risk contribution Info

  • Robinhood Markets Inc
    Weight: 3.20%
    9.6%
  • Zeta Global Holdings Corp
    Weight: 3.20%
    8.7%
  • Palantir Technologies Inc.
    Weight: 3.20%
    6.6%
  • Amazon.com Inc
    Weight: 4.80%
    5.5%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Weight: 8.00%
    5.3%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 35.7%

Risk contribution highlights how much each position adds to total volatility, not just how big it is. Robinhood, at 3.2% weight, contributes about 9.6% of portfolio risk, and Zeta Global and Palantir also punch far above their weights. This means a small handful of volatile names drive nearly a quarter of total risk, even though they’re not the largest holdings by dollars. In contrast, the broad S&P 500 ETF has a high weight but a relatively low risk share. The big lesson: position size alone doesn’t tell the full story; volatility and correlations matter a lot. Trimming highly volatile names or offsetting them with steadier holdings can bring risk back in line.

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 current portfolio sits well below the efficient frontier, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.15. The “efficient frontier” is the curve of best possible return for each risk level using only the existing holdings. The optimal mix on that curve shows a much higher Sharpe, meaning far better risk‑adjusted returns are theoretically possible just by reweighting what’s already owned. Even the same‑risk optimized point suggests meaningfully higher potential return. With only eight months of data, these exact numbers are shaky, but the direction is clear: the current weightings aren’t using the holdings as efficiently as they could. Periodic re‑sizing of positions could improve the trade‑off between volatility and expected return.

Dividends Info

  • AbbVie Inc 3.10%
  • ASML Holding NV 0.80%
  • Avantis® International Small Cap Value ETF 3.10%
  • Broadcom Inc 0.60%
  • Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 1.40%
  • Alphabet Inc Class A 0.30%
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co 2.00%
  • Eli Lilly and Company 0.70%
  • Mastercard Inc 0.60%
  • Meta Platforms Inc. 0.40%
  • Microsoft Corporation 1.00%
  • Global X Defense Tech ETF 0.30%
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 0.70%
  • Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF 1.50%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 3.00%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 0.76%

The overall dividend yield is about 0.76%, which is relatively low compared with income‑focused approaches but reasonable for a growth‑tilted equity portfolio. Individual positions like AbbVie and the international small‑cap value ETF offer more generous yields, while many well‑known growth names pay little or nothing. Dividends matter because they provide a steady cash return that doesn’t rely on selling shares, and they can cushion total returns over long periods. Here, the emphasis is clearly on capital appreciation rather than income. That’s fine for investors who don’t need current cash flow, but those wanting regular payouts might see this as more of a growth engine than an income generator.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • ARK Space Exploration & Innovation ETF 0.75%
  • Avantis® International Small Cap Value ETF 0.36%
  • Avantis® U.S. Small Cap Value ETF 0.25%
  • iShares MSCI India ETF 0.65%
  • Global X Defense Tech ETF 0.50%
  • Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF 0.49%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.07%

Total estimated costs are impressively low at around 0.07% per year, thanks to the heavy use of low‑fee index ETFs. A few specialized funds carry higher expense ratios, like ARK’s space ETF and the India ETF, but their small weights keep the blended cost down. Fees are one of the few variables an investor can control, and they compound over time just like returns do. Keeping them low is a big structural positive for long‑term performance. This cost profile is very much aligned with best practices and helps ensure more of the portfolio’s gross return ends up in the investor’s pocket rather than going to fund managers.

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