A growth tilted stock heavy portfolio with strong tech exposure and surprisingly high simulated return range

Report created on Dec 15, 2025

Risk profile Info

4/7
Balanced
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

3/5
Moderately Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio is almost entirely in stocks, with a solid core in broad index ETFs and a big tilt to individual growth names and income-oriented business development companies. Compared with a typical balanced benchmark, which usually mixes stocks and bonds, this setup is clearly more growth-focused and less cushioned by defensive assets. That matters because stocks drive long-term growth but can swing sharply in rough markets. Keeping the broad ETFs as the core is a strong anchor, while the many overlapping growth holdings could be streamlined. Trimming duplication and adding a small stabilizing sleeve, like lower-volatility or defensive assets, could make the overall mix better match a “balanced” label without giving up much upside potential.

Growth Info

Using a simple example, a $10,000 starting investment growing at a 29.3% CAGR (compound annual growth rate) would have multiplied many times over the backtest period. That’s an exceptional historic pace, well above broad market benchmarks, and the -20% max drawdown is actually mild for such a return profile. It suggests the portfolio has ridden strong winners, especially in growth and tech, without experiencing the deepest market drops. Still, past returns are like looking in the rearview mirror: great to understand the journey, useless for predicting the road ahead. Treat this track record as proof the strategy can handle risk, not as a guarantee it will keep repeating this level of performance.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo analysis, which runs 1,000 random “what if” paths using historical patterns, shows extremely wide but mostly positive outcomes. Monte Carlo is like simulating many alternate market histories to see a rough range of possibilities. A 5th percentile outcome around +711% and a median near +3,899% over the period signal very high expected growth but also big uncertainty. These numbers look eye-popping and probably reflect a short, unusually strong data window plus concentration in winners. Simulations are only as good as the assumptions and past data they feed on, so they can easily overstate future potential. It might be wise to mentally haircut these numbers and focus more on risk comfort than on best-case growth.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    99%
  • No data
    1%

Asset-class-wise, this is essentially a 99% equity portfolio with no meaningful allocation to bonds, cash, or alternatives. Compared with a typical “balanced” benchmark—often roughly 60% stocks and 40% bonds—this is much more aggressive despite the moderate risk score label. Equities are the main growth engine, but they don’t naturally smooth out volatility like bonds or cash can. The upside is clear: maximum participation in market rallies. The trade-off is deeper portfolio swings when markets fall. For someone actually wanting balanced risk, gradually layering in a diversifying asset class sleeve and setting a minimum cash buffer for flexibility could bring the risk profile closer to the stated classification without significantly dulling long-term growth ambitions.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    33%
  • Financials
    21%
  • Telecommunications
    19%
  • Consumer Staples
    12%
  • Industrials
    7%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    3%
  • Health Care
    2%
  • Utilities
    1%
  • Energy
    1%
  • Basic Materials
    1%
  • Real Estate
    1%

Sector exposure is heavily tilted toward technology, communication services, and financial services, with tech alone around a third of the portfolio. This lines up with recent market leadership and helps explain the strong historic growth, since many winners have come from these areas. However, tech-heavy and growth-heavy portfolios can be more sensitive when interest rates rise or when markets rotate toward more defensive or value-oriented areas. The smaller allocations to defensive businesses like consumer staples and industrials do add some ballast. Overall, this sector mix still looks growth-tilted but not completely one-sided, which is positive. Simplifying overlapping tech exposure while nudging up more resilient sectors could slightly reduce volatility without sacrificing the growth story.

Regions Info

  • North America
    95%
  • Europe Developed
    3%
  • No data
    1%
  • Japan
    1%

Geographically, exposure is overwhelmingly in North America, with only a small slice in developed Europe and minimal presence in other regions. This home-country tilt is very common for U.S. investors and has been rewarded over the last decade as U.S. markets outperformed many others. However, it also ties portfolio fortunes tightly to one economic and policy environment. If U.S. leadership slows or other regions catch up, the portfolio may lag more globally diversified peers. The good news is that a modest international sleeve is already present, which is a start. Gradually building that into a more meaningful share, while staying simple and broad, could add another layer of diversification against country-specific shocks.

Market capitalization Info

  • Mega-cap
    58%
  • Large-cap
    24%
  • Mid-cap
    14%
  • No data
    2%
  • Small-cap
    1%

The size breakdown shows a strong lean toward mega and large-cap companies, with very little in small or micro caps. Large caps tend to be established businesses with more stable earnings and better liquidity, which often means smoother rides than pure small-cap portfolios. This aligns well with a “balanced” risk profile, even though the overall stock weight is high. The relatively small mid-cap and tiny small-cap exposure still gives some extra growth kick without dominating risk. This structure is well-aligned with common benchmarks and is a strength of the portfolio. If more stability is desired over time, keeping the focus on broad large-cap exposure while avoiding excessive bets in smaller, more volatile names can help.

Redundant positions Info

  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
    Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF
    Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
    JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF
    High correlation

Many holdings here are highly correlated, meaning they tend to move in the same direction at the same time. The group of broad U.S. and tech-oriented ETFs is a good example: they’re all largely tied to similar underlying companies and factors. When correlation is high, owning more funds doesn’t necessarily lower risk; it just adds complexity without much diversification benefit. This is especially relevant in market downturns, when everything in a correlated group can fall together. The portfolio would likely benefit from trimming overlapping, near-duplicate exposures and deciding which core funds truly earn their place. Fewer, more distinct positions can make the portfolio easier to manage while preserving the overall strategy and risk 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.

From a risk–return standpoint, this portfolio likely sits above-average on the Efficient Frontier for a pure-equity lineup, thanks to the strong growth tilt and low costs. The Efficient Frontier is just the set of portfolio mixes, using existing holdings, that give the best possible return for each level of volatility. Here, the main drag on “efficiency” isn’t bad assets but redundancy: several highly correlated funds doing similar jobs. Reallocating among the current holdings—tilting a bit more to broad, cheap cores and a bit less to overlapping niche funds—could nudge the portfolio closer to that ideal risk–return tradeoff. Efficiency doesn’t mean maximum diversification or minimal risk; it means getting the most expected return for the amount of risk actually chosen.

Dividends Info

  • Ares Capital Corporation 6.90%
  • Blackstone Secured Lending Fund 11.00%
  • Costco Wholesale Corp 0.60%
  • Alphabet Inc Class A 0.30%
  • Invesco S&P International Developed Momentum ETF 1.60%
  • iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF 0.20%
  • JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF 10.30%
  • JPMorgan International Value ETF 1.70%
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co. 5.80%
  • Meta Platforms Inc. 0.30%
  • Microsoft Corporation 0.70%
  • Blue Owl Capital Corporation 12.00%
  • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.40%
  • Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF 0.60%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
  • Waste Management Inc 1.20%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 2.24%

The overall dividend yield of about 2.24% comes from a mix of very high-yield positions, especially the business development companies and income-oriented funds, plus low-yield growth names and broad ETFs. This blend means the portfolio gets a meaningful income stream without fully shifting into a pure income strategy. High yields can be attractive, but they sometimes come with extra credit or business risk, so it’s worth watching whether those payouts look sustainable over time. For someone aiming for total return—growth plus some income—this setup is quite reasonable. If predictable cash flow becomes a bigger goal later, gradually increasing the share of more stable, diversified income sources could provide a smoother payout profile.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Invesco S&P International Developed Momentum ETF 0.25%
  • iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF 0.41%
  • JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF 0.35%
  • JPMorgan International Value ETF 0.55%
  • Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.04%
  • Invesco S&P 500® Momentum ETF 0.13%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.07%

The cost picture is a real bright spot. The weighted total expense ratio around 0.07% is impressively low and clearly better than many comparable portfolios. Low TER means more of the portfolio’s growth stays in your pocket instead of going to fund managers each year. This aligns strongly with best practices and supports better long-term compounding. A few specialized funds carry higher fees, but they’re a small slice of the total and don’t meaningfully drag overall costs. Going forward, it’s worth periodically checking if each higher-cost fund still adds something unique—like factor exposure or income—beyond what the cheap core ETFs already deliver, and being willing to simplify if the benefit no longer justifies the extra fee.

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