One country four funds and a tech crush pretending to be balanced diversification
Report created on May 6, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 55.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 16.00% -
VT Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
VTI - US9229087690 15.00% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
VOOG - US9219325050 14.00%
This “portfolio” is basically one idea repeated four times with slightly different labels. Over half sits in the S&P 500, then you stack a NASDAQ 100 slice, plus growth S&P, plus total US market for good measure. It’s like ordering four versions of the same burger and calling it a buffet. The structure screams “more funds = more diversification” while the underlying reality is “concentrated US large-cap growth, just layered.” On paper it looks busy; under the hood it’s one crowded trade with cosmetic variety. The main story here is redundancy masquerading as sophistication.
Growth
Historically, this concentrated US growth rocket actually flew pretty well: $1,000 turned into $2,241, edging out the US market and comfortably beating the global one. CAGR of 15.7% is loud, but so is a -27% max drawdown that took over a year to recover. CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is like your average speed on a road trip; here, it’s fast but with some serious potholes. The outperformance is real, but so is the whiplash. This is basically: “Congratulations, you won the recent US mega-cap tech lottery, but don’t mistake lucky weather for climate.”
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection politely tells you, “Yeah, this could go great… or not.” Monte Carlo just runs thousands of alternate futures, like watching 1,000 different timelines of the same portfolio. Median outcome of $2,713 on $1,000 in 15 years is fine, but the range from $944 to $7,505 is wild. There’s a meaningful chance of barely breaking even after inflation or looking like a genius, depending on when volatility shows up. Past data is like yesterday’s weather; these simulations are just fancy guesses based on that same weather, not a guarantee of endless sunshine.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
Asset classes: 100% stocks, 0% everything else. This isn’t “balanced”; it’s stocks in a trench coat pretending to be a diversified adult. No bonds, no alternatives, no defensive ballast — just pure equity beta all the way down. That’s why the risk score sits mid‑high despite you only owning four ETFs. When markets are kind, this looks bold; when they’re not, it feels like riding a bike with no brakes down a steep hill. The asset-class “diversification” section is basically one long line that quietly says, “Hope you like volatility.”
Sectors
- Technology 39%
- Telecommunications 12%
- Consumer Discretionary 10%
- Financials 10%
- Health Care 8%
- Industrials 7%
- Consumer Staples 5%
- Energy 3%
- Utilities 2%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Real Estate 2%
Sector-wise, this is technology and tech-adjacent everything, with a bit of other stuff sprinkled in so the chart isn’t embarrassing. Tech at 39%, plus communication and consumer discretionary leaning heavily into the same growth-ish names, means a lot of your fate hangs on the same macro story: innovation stays hot and rates don’t crush valuations. The more boring, cyclical, or defensive sectors are basically set dressing. When growth is in favor, this feels brilliant; when the market rotates, this looks like you brought a skateboard to an ice storm.
Regions
- North America 99%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geography: 99% North America, 1% token Europe. This is “world investing” in the sense that some multinational companies sell things overseas. It’s basically a bet that one country’s stock market stays king forever. That worked beautifully in this recent US-dominant decade, but history has a rude habit of rotating winners. There’s an entire planet of markets out there, and this portfolio behaves like they’re all optional DLC. If the US keeps dominating, great. If leadership shifts, this setup is going to learn the meaning of “home bias hangover.”
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 49%
- Large-cap 33%
- Mid-cap 16%
- Small-cap 1%
Market cap exposure is a shrine to the giants: roughly half in mega-caps, a third in large-caps, and a thin sliver left for mid and small. This is like calling it a “team sport” when 90% of the plays go through the same few star players. The dominance of mega-caps means the portfolio rides the moods of a tiny club of colossal companies. Mid- and small-caps are present mostly so the style box doesn’t look empty, but they’re not really steering anything. When the titans wobble, the whole thing shakes, no matter how many tickers you technically own.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 8.54%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AA Apple Inc 6.57%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 5.54%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.80%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 3.48%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AV Broadcom Inc 3.06%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.87%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 2.64%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
TS Tesla Inc 1.81%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
-
BR Berkshire Hathaway Inc 1.49%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
- Top 10 total 39.81%
The look-through is where the illusion really breaks. NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla — they’re everywhere, hiding inside multiple ETFs like a tech matryoshka doll. NVIDIA at 8.5%, Apple at 6.6%, Microsoft at 5.5% is not “indirect exposure”; it’s a direct dependency, just laundered through several index wrappers. This is hidden concentration: it looks like four funds, but it’s really one cluster of the same ten companies over and over. When these names win, you look smart. When they don’t, all your different-looking ETFs lose in sync.
Factors
Factor-wise, the portfolio is almost suspiciously neutral across value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility. Factor exposure is like the ingredient label explaining what really flavors your returns; here it mostly says “tastes like the market.” For a portfolio that leans so hard into big US growth names, the factor profile is weirdly boring. No strong tilt toward low volatility or yield to smooth the ride, no deliberate lean into deep value or tiny stocks either. It’s basically market beta with a growth costume, driven more by geography and sector than any intentional factor play.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 55.00% 50.6% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 16.00% 19.2% -
Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 14.00% 16.0% -
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 15.00% 14.2%
Risk contribution exposes who’s actually running the show. The S&P 500 ETF at 55% weight contributes about 51% of risk, so it’s doing exactly what it looks like. The NASDAQ 100, though only 16% of weight, throws in over 19% of total risk, punching above its size. Add the S&P 500 Growth ETF and those top three positions control roughly 86% of the portfolio’s ups and downs. So while it looks like four funds sharing responsibility, one and a half of them are basically driving the drama. The rest are just along for the ride, pretending to diversify.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationVanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF SharesVanguard S&P 500 ETFInvesco NASDAQ 100 ETFVanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares
The correlation map is a polite way of saying: these funds all move together like synchronized swimmers. S&P 500, S&P 500 Growth, Total Market, NASDAQ 100 — they’re basically different camera angles of the same show. Correlation means when one goes down, the others usually say, “Wait for me!” and follow. In a crash, this portfolio doesn’t hedge itself; it amplifies the same direction. The labels differ, the tickers differ, but the behavior is nearly copy-paste. Diversification isn’t about how many funds you own; it’s about owning things that actually disagree with each other sometimes.
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 efficient frontier, this thing accidentally lands in the “not dumb” zone. The Sharpe ratio of 0.68 trails the optimized version at 0.89, but the model says the current mix is still on or very near the frontier for these specific holdings. Translation: if you insist on only these four funds, you’re not butchering the risk/return trade-off. Efficient frontier is just the curve showing the best possible return for each risk level; you’re close to that line. So structurally redundant, yes. Mathematically efficient within that redundancy, annoyingly also yes.
Dividends
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares 0.50%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 1.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.92%
Dividend yield at 0.92% is lunch money in a world where a savings account can look competitive. That’s what happens when you worship at the altar of growth and mega-cap tech; cash gets reinvested, not paid out. If someone thought this was a stealth income strategy, the math disagrees. This setup is basically saying, “Don’t expect a paycheck; you’re here for capital gains and mood swings.” Nothing wrong with low yield by itself, but it does mean returns lean heavily on price appreciation continuing to cooperate, not on companies quietly mailing you cash every quarter.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund ETF Shares 0.10%
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.06%
Costs are the one area where this portfolio behaves like it read a book. Total TER of 0.06% is impressively low; you’re paying couch-cushion money for market exposure. It’s almost annoying how cheap this is given how redundant the holdings are — you’ve built a highly overlapping structure but at least you didn’t overpay for the privilege. This is the financial equivalent of shopping the sale rack but still buying three versions of the same T-shirt. Fees aren’t the problem here; the problem is what you chose to own so cheaply.
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!
Compare your holdings
How much do the funds you hold actually overlap with the ones people weigh them against?
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