This portfolio is a simple three‑fund, 100% stock mix with a clear structure. Around two‑thirds sits in a broad US large‑cap index, one‑fifth in US small‑cap value, and the rest in a global ex‑US fund. That means most of the risk and return is driven by stocks in one country, with a smaller but meaningful slice from smaller, cheaper‑priced companies and international markets. A setup like this is easy to understand and maintain, which is a real plus. The flip side is that there’s no built‑in role for bonds or cash here, so the portfolio will naturally move up and down more with the stock market.
From late 2019 to August 2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $2,742. That translates to a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 15.87% — CAGR is just the “average yearly speed” of growth over the full period. The worst drop, or max drawdown, was about -36% during early 2020, with a recovery in roughly five months. Compared with benchmarks, the portfolio slightly lagged the US market but beat the global market, which is solid given its tilt toward small‑cap value and international names. The 23 “critical days” that made up 90% of returns highlight how missing just a few strong days could have mattered a lot.
The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which is basically running the portfolio through many alternate “histories” based on past behavior. Each simulation shakes returns around randomly using patterns from the data, then checks where $1,000 might end up after 15 years. The median outcome is about $2,805, with a wide middle range between roughly $1,784 and $4,411. There’s a 73% chance of ending above $1,000 across all runs, and an average simulated annual return of about 8.2%. This shows a broad spread of possible futures, not a promise. It’s a reminder that even historically strong portfolios can have long flat or weak periods.
All of this portfolio is in stocks, with 0% in bonds, cash, or alternatives. An all‑equity allocation tends to offer higher long‑term growth potential but also sharper ups and downs along the way. There’s no built‑in “shock absorber” here, so changes in stock markets feed straight through into the portfolio’s value. Compared with many blended benchmarks that include bonds, this mix is clearly more growth‑oriented and more volatile. On the upside, the equity exposure is very broad across thousands of companies worldwide. On the downside, any need for stability has to be handled outside this portfolio, because nothing inside it is playing that role.
Sector exposure is spread across technology, financials, industrials, health care, telecom, consumer areas, energy, materials, utilities, and real estate. Technology is the largest slice at about 30%, which is fairly typical of broad US‑heavy equity portfolios today. Financials and industrials also have meaningful roles, while more defensive sectors like utilities and staples are smaller. This pattern broadly mirrors global equity benchmarks, which is a good sign for diversification. It means the portfolio isn’t making huge sector bets beyond the natural tilt that comes from owning a lot of US stocks and a small‑cap value fund. In practice, sector swings will matter, but no single sector is dominating everything.
Geographically, the portfolio is strongly tilted toward North America at about 86%, with smaller allocations to developed Europe, Japan, other developed Asia, and emerging markets. This US‑heavy stance has lined up well with the last decade, when US stocks have outperformed many other regions. Relative to a global market index, though, this does represent an overweight to one economy and currency. The benefit is clearer exposure to companies and a system that may be more familiar. The trade‑off is that shocks specific to the US market or dollar will have an outsized effect, while positive surprises elsewhere in the world are captured only through a modest allocation.
By market size, the portfolio covers the full spectrum: mega‑caps at 36%, large‑caps at 27%, mid‑caps at 15%, small‑caps at 11%, and micro‑caps at 10%. That’s a broad spread, and the dedicated small‑cap value position is what pushes exposure down the size spectrum. Larger companies tend to be more stable and widely followed, while smaller companies can be more volatile but also more sensitive to economic growth and local stories. Compared with a pure large‑cap index, this mix leans more into smaller names, which can change how the portfolio behaves in different market environments. It’s a deliberate tilt rather than an accident of the data.
The look‑through data only covers the top 10 holdings of the ETFs, so it captures about 4% of underlying ETF assets and 3.8% of the total portfolio. Within that slice, a few names like Taiwan Semiconductor, Samsung Electronics, and ASML show up, mainly through the international fund. A handful of smaller US companies appear via the small‑cap value ETF. There’s no sign here of a single company dominating across multiple funds, which is positive. Still, because coverage is limited to top‑10 lists, any overlap deeper in the portfolios isn’t visible, so actual concentration in certain big companies is likely higher than the table suggests.
Factor exposure shows a notable tilt toward value at 63%, with other factors sitting close to neutral. “Value” here means more weight in stocks trading at lower prices relative to fundamentals like earnings or book value. Academic research has found that value characteristics have historically been linked to higher long‑run returns, but often with long stretches of underperformance. Size, momentum, quality, low volatility, and yield are all around the market average, so the main distinctive trait is that value tilt. In practice, this can mean the portfolio behaves differently from a pure growth‑driven index, doing relatively better when cheaper stocks are in favor and lagging when expensive growth names lead.
Risk contribution looks at how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which isn’t always the same as its weight. Here, the S&P 500 fund is 65% of assets and contributes about 63% of total risk, very much in line. The small‑cap value ETF is 20% of the portfolio but contributes roughly 25% of the risk, reflecting its higher volatility; its risk/weight ratio above 1 highlights that extra punch. The international ETF is 15% of assets but only about 12.5% of risk, slightly dampening overall volatility. This pattern shows that even a minority position in riskier small caps can meaningfully influence how bumpy the ride feels.
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 vs. return analysis suggests this portfolio is already very efficient. The current mix has a Sharpe ratio of 0.64, while the optimal combination of the same three holdings reaches about 0.82, and the minimum variance version has lower risk but also lower return. The Sharpe ratio is a way of scoring how much extra return you get for each unit of risk taken, after subtracting a risk‑free rate. Being on or very near the efficient frontier means that, for the level of volatility this portfolio carries, it’s extracting a strong amount of return from its current building blocks. That’s a clear structural positive.
The overall dividend yield is about 1.26%, with the international ETF yielding more than the US funds and the small‑cap value ETF sitting modestly in the middle. Dividend yield is the annual cash payout as a percentage of the current price — think of it as rental income from owning shares. In this portfolio, income plays more of a supporting role than a main feature; most of the total return historically has come from price changes rather than dividends. That’s common for growth‑tilted equity portfolios. Still, having multiple sources of payout, including from international stocks, can modestly smooth returns over time when reinvested.
The weighted average cost of this portfolio is very low, with a total expense ratio (TER) of about 0.07%. TER is the annual fee charged by funds to cover their operating costs, taken directly from fund assets. In practice, that means only 7 cents a year on every $100 invested goes to fees, which is impressively low. Costs matter because they compound over time in the same way returns do — money not paid in fees stays invested and can grow. This cost level compares very favorably to many actively managed products and is a strong structural advantage that supports better long‑term performance.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
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.
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey