Strong large cap US growth and dividend blend with tech tilt and low overall diversification
Report created on Mar 19, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 40.00% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 40.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 20.00%
The structure is very simple: three US stock ETFs only. Roughly 40% sits in a NASDAQ 100 tracker, 40% in a broad US large cap index fund, and 20% in a US dividend equity ETF. That means 100% of the portfolio is in equities, with no bonds, cash, or alternatives in the mix. A pure‑equity portfolio like this will usually grow faster over long periods but also swings more during market stress. The big positive here is clarity: it’s extremely easy to understand and maintain. The trade‑off is that downside moves won’t be cushioned by safer assets when markets fall sharply.
Growth
Historically, the portfolio has delivered a strong 14.6% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). CAGR is the “per year on average” growth rate, like the steady speed needed to cover a long road trip. The max drawdown of about ‑26% shows how far it has fallen from a peak in tough times, which is moderate for an all‑stock mix. Only 23 days made up 90% of returns, which underlines how a few big market days drive long‑term results. While history has been kind for US large‑cap‑heavy mixes, past performance can’t guarantee the same path going forward, especially if leadership in markets rotates.
Projection
The forward projection uses a Monte Carlo simulation, which runs 1,000 random “what if” paths based on historical returns and volatility. Think of it as replaying history with the same dice but in different orders to see a range of possible futures. The median outcome (about 562% of starting value) is very optimistic, and even the 5th percentile finishes positive. That reflects strong historical US equity returns, but it rests on the assumption that the future statistically resembles the past. Real markets can behave differently, especially after long strong runs, so these simulations are helpful for framing possibilities, not promises.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of the money is in stocks, with 0% in bonds, cash, or other asset classes. That’s a big reason diversification is scored as low, even though there are multiple ETFs. Classic “balanced” portfolios usually include meaningful bond or cash allocations to dampen volatility and provide a buffer during equity bear markets. Being 100% in stocks is fine for some investors, but it does mean that portfolio value will largely move with the stock market cycle. If smoother ups and downs or near‑term spending needs are important, mixing in other asset classes is usually how people reduce those swings.
Sectors
- Technology 35%
- Telecommunications 12%
- Consumer Discretionary 11%
- Consumer Staples 9%
- Health Care 9%
- Industrials 7%
- Financials 6%
- Energy 6%
- Utilities 2%
- Basic Materials 2%
- Real Estate 1%
Sector exposure is clearly tilted. Technology is the largest slice at 35%, followed by communication services and consumer‑related areas. More defensive areas like utilities, basic materials, and real estate are small. Compared with a broad global equity mix, this is more tech‑ and growth‑oriented, which has been a winning setup over the past decade. The upside is strong participation when innovative, fast‑growing businesses lead. The trade‑off is higher sensitivity to changes in interest rates, regulation, and market sentiment toward growth stocks. During periods when investors favor more cyclical or defensive areas, this kind of sector profile can lag.
Regions
- North America 99%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geographically, the mix is almost pure North America at 99%, with a token 1% in developed Europe through underlying holdings. That alignment with the US market is extremely tight and mirrors a strong home‑bias common among US investors. It’s been beneficial in the last decade because US large caps have outperformed many other regions. The flip side is that returns and risks are heavily linked to the US economic cycle, policy decisions, and currency. When non‑US markets outperform, or if the US faces a prolonged slowdown, a portfolio this concentrated by region can miss out on diversification benefits.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 40%
- Large-cap 39%
- Mid-cap 18%
- Small-cap 1%
Market‑cap exposure is dominated by mega and big companies, with about 79% in the largest firms and only around 19% in mid caps and 1% in small caps. Large and mega caps tend to be more stable, profitable, and widely followed, which can reduce idiosyncratic company‑specific risk compared with small, less established firms. However, it also means missing some of the growth and diversification potential that smaller companies can bring over longer horizons. The positive here is that the portfolio behaves similarly to mainstream large‑cap indices, which many investors find easier to understand and emotionally stick with through cycles.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 6.42%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 5.60%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 4.33%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.16%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.63%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 2.40%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 2.32%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.28%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 2.24%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
WM Walmart Inc. Common Stock 1.36%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Top 10 total 32.73%
Looking through the ETFs, the portfolio is heavily exposed to a handful of mega‑cap names. NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (both share classes), Meta, Tesla, and Broadcom together take up a sizable slice of effective exposure. Many of these appear in multiple ETFs, which creates hidden concentration even though you “only” own three funds. Because this overlap analysis only uses top‑10 ETF holdings, the concentration might actually be understated. This kind of clustering is great when those big names lead the market, but it means portfolio outcomes are very tied to the fortunes of a small group of large US companies.
Factors
Factor exposure shows strong tilts to yield, low volatility, and momentum. Factors are like underlying “behaviour traits” of stocks – value, size, momentum, quality, low volatility, and yield – that research links to long‑term returns. A high momentum tilt means the portfolio leans toward stocks that have been recent winners, which can boost returns in trending markets but hurt more in sharp reversals. The pronounced yield and low‑volatility tilts, largely from the dividend ETF, add a more stable, income‑oriented flavor that can soften some swings. Signal coverage isn’t perfect, so these readings are approximate, but they align well with your ETF lineup.
Risk contribution
-
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 40.00% 49.1% -
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 40.00% 37.8% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 20.00% 13.1%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives overall ups and downs, which can differ from its simple weight. Here the NASDAQ 100 ETF is 40% of capital but contributes about 49% of risk, a high risk‑to‑weight ratio. The S&P 500 ETF is roughly aligned, while the dividend ETF contributes less risk than its 20% weight. In other words, the growth‑heavy NASDAQ sleeve is the main engine of volatility and return potential. If the goal is a smoother risk profile, shifting some weight from the higher‑risk growth ETF toward the more stable or diversified sleeve can bring risk contribution closer to intended levels.
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 a classic risk‑return chart, the efficient frontier curve shows the best possible return for each risk level using only existing holdings in different mixes. While exact optimization data isn’t provided here, the concentration in a single higher‑risk growth ETF suggests the current weights might sit slightly below the frontier, with room to tweak risk‑adjusted returns. Sharpe ratio – return per unit of risk – could likely be improved by modestly rebalancing toward a better mix of growth and dividend components while keeping overall equity exposure intact. That kind of reweighting doesn’t require new products, just fine‑tuning what’s already in place.
Dividends
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.20%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.36%
The blended dividend yield is about 1.36%, coming mainly from the dividend ETF with a 3.4% yield. Yield is the annual cash income as a percentage of the investment value. For a growth‑tilted equity mix, a 1–2% range is typical, so this level is consistent with focusing more on total return than on immediate income. The dividend sleeve slightly boosts cash flow and may add some resilience in downturns, since dividend payers can be more mature and stable. If someone needs meaningful income today, though, this yield on its own would usually be considered modest rather than high.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.08%
The portfolio’s costs are impressively low. With expense ratios of 0.15%, 0.06%, and 0.03%, the overall blended cost lands around 0.08%. That’s well below what many actively managed funds charge and is a real strength. Fees are like a permanent headwind; even small differences compound dramatically over decades. Keeping them this low supports better long‑term outcomes and lets more of the portfolio’s return stay in your pocket. From a cost perspective, this setup is already very efficient and closely aligned with best practices in low‑cost, index‑oriented investing, so there’s no strong pressure to change purely on fees.
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