Roast mode 🔥

Comfortable index hugger with a secret tech crush and a mild case of ETF duplication

Report created on Apr 13, 2026

Risk 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

This portfolio looks like someone went shopping in the “basic but safe” ETF aisle and couldn’t decide, so they grabbed one of everything US-large-cap-flavored. You’ve basically got three different ways to own the same US market (S&P 500, total market, equal weight) plus QQQ on top like extra cheese, then some international and a dividend ETF for respectability. It’s diversified enough to pass a basic quiz, but not enough to be genuinely interesting. The main issue: you’re paying complexity for very little extra benefit. A simpler mix could deliver almost the same behavior without needing a spreadsheet to remember what each slice actually does.

Growth Info

Historically, this thing has done very well on paper: $1,000 turning into $3,706 over ten years with a 14.06% CAGR is far from embarrassing. You lagged the broad US market by just 0.44% a year, which is basically a rounding error, while handily beating the global market. Max drawdown at -33.6% in 2020 is brutal emotionally but completely normal for an equity-only portfolio. The “34 days make up 90% of returns” stat screams: timing the market is a clown game. Past data is like yesterday’s weather though — useful context, not a prophecy. Takeaway: behavior (not panicking) mattered more than tiny index underperformance.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection basically says: “It’ll probably work out, but don’t get cocky.” Monte Carlo is just running your portfolio through a thousand alternate futures based on historical patterns — like rolling financial dice over and over. Median outcome of $2,828 after 15 years on $1,000 looks solid, but the range is wild: from “meh” ($1,810) to “nicely done” ($4,280), with a non-trivial chance of landing closer to $900. Average simulated return of 8.23% is notably lower than your backtest, which is code for “don’t expect the last decade’s party to continue forever.” Plan for decent, not miraculous.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    100%

Asset classes: 100% stocks, zero bonds, zero anything else. So the portfolio is basically a one-trick pony that only knows “risk-on.” For someone labeled “Balanced” with a 4/7 risk score, this is… optimistic. A genuinely balanced setup usually mixes in some boring stuff to keep you from emotionally detonating during crashes. Here, there’s nowhere to hide — if stocks tank, everything in this portfolio is going down together, just with slightly different levels of drama. The upside is long-term growth potential; the downside is you’re volunteering for full roller-coaster mode. This suits people who say they’re fine with volatility and actually mean it.

Sectors Info

  • Technology
    28%
  • Financials
    12%
  • Health Care
    11%
  • Industrials
    10%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    10%
  • Telecommunications
    9%
  • Consumer Staples
    8%
  • Energy
    5%
  • Basic Materials
    3%
  • Utilities
    3%
  • Real Estate
    2%

Sector-wise, tech has clearly been whispering sweet nothings in your ear: 28% in technology is a definite tilt, with the rest spread fairly sensibly across financials, health care, industrials, and consumer areas. It’s not an insane tech addiction, but it’s above “just following the market” territory, especially with QQQ layering on more growthy exposure. The risk here is obvious: when tech shines, you’ll look smart; when it crashes, you’ll feel every punch. Other sectors are reasonably represented, so this isn’t a total one-bet portfolio, but the steering wheel is undeniably in tech’s hands more than anything else.

Regions Info

  • North America
    87%
  • Europe Developed
    6%
  • Japan
    2%
  • Asia Developed
    2%
  • Asia Emerging
    2%
  • Australasia
    1%

Geography: 87% North America. So, yes, this is basically a “USA and some garnish” portfolio. You do technically own the rest of the world, but it’s pocket change compared to your home bias. To be fair, the US has been the winning horse for a long time, so this hasn’t hurt you — yet. But long term, tying almost everything to one region’s fortunes is like only ever eating at one restaurant because the last few meals were good. If that kitchen has a bad decade, you’ll really feel it. The small non-US slice is more decoration than true diversification.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    38%
  • Mega-cap
    34%
  • Mid-cap
    23%
  • Small-cap
    4%
  • Micro-cap
    1%

Market cap breakdown screams classic big-name comfort zone: 72% in mega- and large-caps, with mid-caps supporting and small/micro-caps as a rounding error. Basically, you own the corporate celebrities and barely any of the scrappy up-and-comers. That’s not necessarily bad — big companies are often more stable and more researched — but it does mean your returns are heavily driven by the same giants everyone else owns. The equal-weight S&P and total market funds try to sprinkle in some smaller names, but they’re passengers, not drivers. If you wanted true small-cap spice, 4–5% is more “dusting” than “tilt.”

True holdings Info

  • NVIDIA Corporation
    4.26%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Apple Inc
    3.85%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Microsoft Corporation
    2.86%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Amazon.com Inc
    2.14%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Alphabet Inc Class A
    1.81%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Broadcom Inc
    1.54%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Meta Platforms Inc.
    1.52%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Alphabet Inc Class C
    1.50%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Tesla Inc
    1.28%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Invesco QQQ Trust
    • LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Berkshire Hathaway Inc
    0.67%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
  • Top 10 total 21.43%

The look-through holdings just confirm what we already suspected: this is a “worship the megacaps” shrine disguised as diversification. NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla — the usual suspects all show up across multiple ETFs. You don’t hold them directly, but they’re everywhere, like glitter after a craft project. And that’s only based on top-10 ETF positions, so the real overlap is higher. The hidden message: you’re more concentrated in a small group of mega names than the ETF lineup suggests. That’s fine if you intentionally believe in the tech megacap empire; less fine if you thought you were escaping it.

Factors Info

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

Factor profile: aggressively… normal. Everything — value, size, momentum, quality, yield, low volatility — sits in neutral, basically hugging the broad market. Factor exposures are like the hidden flavor profile of your portfolio; in your case, it tastes like “plain vanilla index,” despite all the ETFs. No big bet on cheap stocks, high quality, fast movers, or safety. The upside is this avoids accidentally loading up on some weird factor you don’t believe in. The downside is it makes all those overlapping funds feel a bit pointless — lots of moving parts, but the end result is pretty much just “market, with extra steps.”

Risk contribution Info

  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Weight: 26.18%
    26.8%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    Weight: 18.74%
    19.5%
  • Invesco QQQ Trust
    Weight: 13.64%
    15.9%
  • Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight ETF
    Weight: 13.76%
    13.9%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares
    Weight: 13.81%
    12.0%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 88.1%

Risk contribution shows who’s actually driving the drama, and surprise: it’s the big core funds, not some rogue side bet. The S&P 500, total US market, and QQQ together deliver over 62% of total risk, which is wild considering how similar they are under the hood. QQQ punches a bit above its weight with a risk/weight of 1.17, i.e., it brings more volatility than its percentage suggests. International actually dampens risk a bit. This is the classic “I diversified by buying three flavors of the same thing” setup. Trimming overlapping US buckets could reduce risk concentration without really changing what you own.

Redundant positions Info

  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
    Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight ETF
    Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
    High correlation

The correlation section is brutally honest: several of your ETFs basically move in lockstep. S&P 500, total market, and equal weight are highly correlated — they’re like three different brands of the same soda. In normal times, this just means your chart looks very smooth and very similar to a standard index. In a crash, they all go down together, because surprise: they own almost the same companies. Correlation is just a fancy word for “do these things freak out at the same time,” and here the answer is largely yes. You’ve got diversification by logo, not by behavior.

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 risk–return chart is where the portfolio gets called out: your current mix sits 1.52 percentage points below the efficient frontier at this risk level. The efficient frontier is just a curve showing the best return you could get for each level of risk using the same ingredients. You’re below that curve, which means the recipe is suboptimal even though the ingredients are fine. Sharpe of 0.6 vs 0.88 for the optimal mix is a big gap in risk-adjusted return. Translation: a smarter weighting of the exact same ETFs could give you more return or less stress — you’re leaving easy efficiency on the table.

Dividends Info

  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.50%
  • Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight ETF 1.60%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.10%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 2.80%
  • Weighted yield (per year) 1.64%

Dividend yield at 1.64% is fine but unimpressive, especially with a dedicated dividend ETF sitting in the mix doing most of the heavy lifting. That Schwab dividend fund’s 3.4% yield is carrying the income banner while QQQ quietly contributes next to nothing and still demands attention. So this is not an income machine; it’s a growth-focused, equity-heavy portfolio that happens to spit out a little cash on the side. If someone thought this setup would pay their bills, they’d be disappointed. For long-term growth with a small income bonus, it’s reasonable — just don’t pretend it’s a cash-flow powerhouse.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • Invesco QQQ Trust 0.20%
  • Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight ETF 0.20%
  • Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
  • Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
  • Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
  • Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF Shares 0.05%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.08%

Costs are actually suspiciously good. A total expense ratio of 0.08% for this many ETFs is like stumbling into first-class pricing for bus fare. QQQ and equal-weight are the “expensive” ones at 0.20%, but even that is mild, and the Vanguard/Schwab core is dirt cheap. The real “cost” here isn’t fees; it’s redundancy. You’re paying multiple providers tiny amounts to mostly own the same stuff. Money-wise, it’s not killing you at all — this part is well done. If you ever simplify the lineup, it’d be more for sanity than for saving meaningful basis points.

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