Concentrated US blue chip growth portfolio with strong quality tilt and moderate dividend support
Report created on Mar 28, 2026Risk 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
-
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 41.24% -
KO The Coca-Cola Company
KO - US1912161007 21.62% -
MS Microsoft Corporation
MSFT - US5949181045 16.98% -
CA Caterpillar Inc
CAT - US1491231015 11.54% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 8.62%
The portfolio is tightly built around five positions, all in US equities, with a heavy tilt to broad-market exposure plus three big individual stocks. The S&P 500 ETF is the core, but Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and Caterpillar together make up about half the total weight, giving them a major influence on returns. This kind of concentrated structure can work well when the chosen stocks are strong businesses, yet it also means the portfolio’s fate is tied closely to a handful of companies. The key takeaway is that this layout fits a growth‑oriented mindset but doesn’t score highly for diversification, so swings can feel more personal and tied to company‑specific news.
Growth
Historically, the portfolio has been very strong: turning $1,000 into about $4,837 over ten years, with a 17.12% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). CAGR is the “average speed” your money grew per year, smoothing out the bumps. That’s well ahead of both the US market and the global market over the same period, while max drawdown—its worst peak‑to‑trough drop—was roughly similar to broad benchmarks. This shows you’ve been paid well for the risk taken. Still, these results benefited from a decade that was unusually friendly to US large‑cap quality stocks, and past performance, even great performance, cannot guarantee anything about the next decade.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All holdings are in one asset class: stocks. That keeps things simple and maximizes exposure to long‑term growth but also means there’s no built‑in shock absorber like bonds or cash. In sharp market sell‑offs, an all‑equity mix tends to fall faster and further than blended portfolios. Over decades, that risk often gets rewarded, especially for investors who can ignore volatility and keep contributing through downturns. However, it does put more pressure on having an emergency fund and stable non‑portfolio finances. The key point is that this setup fits a growth profile, but people wanting smoother ride or nearer‑term goals might normally blend in more defensive assets.
Sectors
- Technology 32%
- Consumer Staples 26%
- Industrials 16%
- Financials 6%
- Health Care 6%
- Telecommunications 5%
- Consumer Discretionary 5%
- Energy 3%
- Utilities 1%
- Real Estate 1%
- Basic Materials 1%
Sector exposure leans heavily toward technology and defensive consumer businesses, with meaningful industrials exposure and smaller slices across the rest. Tech‑driven allocations often enjoy strong growth but can be sensitive when interest rates rise or when expectations get too optimistic. Consumer staples exposure, anchored by Coca‑Cola, tends to be steadier and can help cushion downturns. The presence across many other sectors, even at modest weights, adds welcome breadth. This mix is a nice balance between growth and resilience, though it still rides largely on the fortunes of a few dominant sectors. For someone comfortable with equity risk, the sector profile is quite healthy and aligned with modern equity benchmarks.
Regions
- North America 100%
Geographically, everything is in North America, which lines up with a home‑bias approach many US investors naturally have. That has been a tailwind over the last decade because US markets have outperformed many regions. The tradeoff is that you miss potential diversification benefits from other economies and currencies. Different regions can lead at different times, so global exposure sometimes softens the blow when the US hits a rough patch. Sticking close to 100% North America is not inherently a problem, but it does mean your portfolio is tightly linked to US economic, political, and regulatory conditions. Anyone wanting global balance might usually sprinkle in more non‑US exposure.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 69%
- Large-cap 21%
- Mid-cap 9%
- Small-cap 1%
Market cap exposure is dominated by mega‑caps, followed by large‑caps, with only a small slice in mid and small companies. Mega‑caps are typically more stable, established leaders, and they often behave somewhat like the broader economy. This tilt can reduce some of the wild swings you might see in small‑cap‑heavy portfolios, while still capturing much of the equity market’s growth. The downside is less exposure to the sometimes higher long‑term returns and volatility of smaller, earlier‑stage companies. Overall, this breakdown is very close to modern index fundamentals, which is a strong indicator that you’re capturing the “market core” rather than making an aggressive size bet.
True holdings
-
Part of fund(s):
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
-
Part of fund(s):
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 3.02%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 2.74%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.43%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.27%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.06%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 1.01%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 0.99%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 64.05%
Looking through the ETFs, there is meaningful hidden concentration in a few mega‑cap names. Coca‑Cola and Microsoft both appear as direct holdings and again via ETFs, pushing total exposures to around 22% and 19% respectively. Other giants like NVIDIA, Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, and Meta show up through the funds, but each at relatively small single‑digit weights. Overlap like this is important because it means your real bet on certain companies is larger than it looks from the surface list. The main implication is that company‑specific events in names like Microsoft or Coke can move the entire portfolio more than you might intuitively expect.
Factors
The standout factor tilt here is toward quality, which measures things like profitability, balance sheet strength, and earnings stability. A 67% score suggests a mild but clear lean into robust companies rather than speculative names. Historically, quality has tended to hold up relatively well in downturns and deliver solid risk‑adjusted returns over full cycles. The other factors cluster near neutral, meaning the portfolio doesn’t meaningfully chase value, momentum, or low volatility one way or the other. That balanced factor mix, anchored by quality, is a nice place to be: you’re not overly exposed to any single style fad, but you benefit from owning well‑run businesses that typically weather storms better.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 41.24% 41.6% -
Microsoft Corporation
Weight: 16.98% 21.4% -
The Coca-Cola Company
Weight: 21.62% 15.0% -
Caterpillar Inc
Weight: 11.54% 14.4% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 8.62% 7.6%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the overall ups and downs, which can differ from its simple weight. The S&P 500 ETF contributes risk roughly in line with its size, which is expected. Microsoft and Caterpillar, though smaller in weight, punch above their weight on risk, each contributing more volatility than their percentage allocation suggests. Coca‑Cola, in contrast, contributes less risk than its sizeable weight, acting as a stabilizer. The top three positions drive about 78% of total portfolio risk, underscoring how concentrated things really are. If you ever wanted to smooth the ride, adjusting single‑stock weights relative to ETFs is usually more impactful than tinkering at the edges.
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 slightly below the efficient frontier, meaning there are alternative weightings of these same holdings that could deliver a better tradeoff. The Sharpe ratio, which measures return per unit of risk, is 0.85 now, versus 1.07 for the optimal mix using only your existing positions. At your current risk level, the portfolio is about 1.05 percentage points below what’s theoretically achievable. In plain terms, you’re getting good results, but not the “best possible” given these ingredients. Re‑weighting—especially dialing in how much sits in single stocks versus the ETFs—could push you closer to that frontier without changing the actual list of holdings.
Dividends
- Caterpillar Inc 0.80%
- The Coca-Cola Company 2.00%
- Microsoft Corporation 1.00%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 2.60%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.90%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.29%
The overall dividend yield of about 1.29% is modest but not trivial, with the bulk coming from Coca‑Cola, the dividend ETF, and to a lesser extent Caterpillar. Yield is the cash income you collect each year relative to your invested amount, and over time reinvested dividends can quietly power a big chunk of total return. In this case, the portfolio is still clearly growth‑oriented rather than income‑focused; dividends provide a small cushion, not a paycheck. For long‑term accumulation, that’s perfectly fine and even beneficial, since lower‑yielding growth names often reinvest heavily back into their businesses, aiming to drive capital gains instead of maximizing immediate cash payouts.
Ongoing product costs
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.02%
Costs are a real bright spot here. With TERs of 0.03% and 0.06% for the ETFs and an estimated portfolio‑level cost around 0.02%, this setup is impressively cheap. TER (total expense ratio) is like an annual management fee baked into the fund price; lower fees mean more of the return stays in your pocket. Over decades, even tiny differences compound into meaningful sums. Being this close to “almost free” puts you well ahead of many investors using higher‑fee products. From a cost perspective, you’re strongly aligned with best practices, and there’s little to gain by trying to shave off more basis points compared with bigger levers like risk, allocation, or savings rate.
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!
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