This portfolio is made up of four equity ETFs, with no bonds or cash in the mix. About 45% sits in a broad US large-cap index, 20% in US small-cap value, 20% in US momentum, and 15% in broad international stocks. That structure leans clearly toward US equities, while still leaving a meaningful slice outside the US. A growth-focused equity blend like this generally aims for capital appreciation rather than steady income. The mix of a plain index ETF plus value and momentum funds adds extra “active-like” tilts on top of a core market exposure, which can change how the portfolio behaves compared with a simple index-only approach.
From late 2019 to May 2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $2,849, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.08%. CAGR is the “average speed” of growth per year, smoothing out ups and downs. That’s slightly ahead of the US market’s 16.46% and clearly above the global market’s 13.87%. The worst drop, or max drawdown, was about -35.6%, a bit deeper than the benchmarks but recovered in about five months. This pattern—higher return with a somewhat sharper dip—fits a growthy, factor-tilted equity mix. As always, past performance doesn’t guarantee similar results in the future.
The Monte Carlo projection looks at many possible futures using the portfolio’s historical behaviour as a guide. It runs 1,000 simulations of how returns could unfold over 15 years, then shows a range of outcomes. Starting from $1,000, the median result is about $2,743, with a “middle” range from roughly $1,858 to $4,228. Monte Carlo is like rolling loaded dice thousands of times to see typical and extreme paths. It’s important to remember these are statistical guesses, not promises: markets can change, correlations can shift, and future returns can be higher or lower than this backward-looking model suggests.
On the asset-class view, 55% of the portfolio is flagged as stocks, with 45% shown as “no data,” which simply means the system doesn’t have a clear tag for that portion. All named holdings are equity ETFs, so the practical takeaway is that the portfolio behaves like 100% equities with no built-in ballast from bonds or cash. Asset allocation by class often drives most of a portfolio’s risk and return, so an all-equity stance tends to mean stronger swings and more reliance on long-term growth. The absence of other asset classes also makes diversification mainly an equity-only story.
Sector-wise, the portfolio is clearly tilted toward economically sensitive areas. Technology is the largest identified sector at 15%, followed by financials and industrials. More defensive segments like utilities, real estate, and consumer staples are present but small. Relative to broad global benchmarks, this looks somewhat growth-leaning because of the higher technology share and modest exposure to more cyclical areas like energy and consumer discretionary. Sector balance matters because different parts of the economy lead at different times. A setup like this can do well when growth and innovation are rewarded, but may feel bumpier during periods when investors favour stability and defensiveness.
Geographically, about 41% of the portfolio is tagged to North America, with the rest spread across Europe, developed and emerging Asia, Japan, Latin America, Africa/Middle East, and Australasia. That’s more US-heavy than a market-cap-weighted global index, where the US is large but not this dominant. At the same time, having visible exposure across all major regions adds a useful layer of international diversification compared with a purely domestic portfolio. Geographic mix affects currency exposure and sensitivity to local economic shocks, so this pattern aligns with a US “home base” plus a diversified foreign sleeve rather than a fully global-first stance.
The market-cap breakdown shows exposure across the size spectrum: mega-cap at 15%, large-cap 14%, mid-cap 5%, small-cap 11%, and micro-cap 9%. This is more size-diversified than a typical broad index, which is usually dominated by mega- and large-caps. Smaller companies can offer higher growth potential but often come with more volatility and sometimes lower liquidity. The dedicated US small-cap value fund is the main driver of the small and micro-cap exposure. This multi-size structure means the portfolio doesn’t rely only on the biggest global names; its performance can also be meaningfully influenced by how smaller companies are doing.
Looking through the top ETF holdings, the biggest underlying positions include NVIDIA, Broadcom, Apple, Alphabet (both share classes), Microsoft, Amazon, Micron, Meta, and Johnson & Johnson. Several of these appear via more than one ETF, which creates overlap—especially in the large US technology and communication names. For instance, NVIDIA alone accounts for about 5.36% of the portfolio through multiple funds. Because only ETF top-10 positions are captured, overall overlap is likely understated. This hidden concentration means that, even with many holdings inside the ETFs, a relatively small set of mega-cap leaders can significantly drive portfolio returns.
On factor exposure, the standout tilt is value at 62%, which is a “high” reading above the 50% market average. Factor exposure is like checking which ingredients—such as value, momentum, or quality—are most prominent in a recipe. A stronger value tilt usually means more weight in stocks that look cheaper on metrics like earnings or book value. The size, momentum, quality, yield, and low-volatility factors all sit in the neutral band, so there’s no major tilt there. Overall, this is primarily a value-tilted equity portfolio layered onto a broadly market-like foundation, which can behave differently from pure growth or pure momentum approaches.
Risk contribution shows how much each ETF drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. The S&P 500 ETF is 45% of capital and contributes about 43% of risk—pretty proportional. The small-cap value ETF is 20% of capital but about 24% of risk, reflecting the higher volatility typically seen in smaller, value-oriented stocks. The momentum ETF’s risk share is close to its weight, while the international ETF contributes a bit less risk than its 15% allocation. The top three holdings together drive nearly 88% of total risk, underlining that most volatility comes from those core US-focused positions.
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 shows the current portfolio delivering about 17.99% expected return with 20.44% risk, giving a Sharpe ratio of 0.68. The efficient frontier is the curve of best possible trade-offs between risk and return using only these four ETFs with different weights. Here, the current mix sits about 1.86 percentage points below that frontier at its risk level, while an alternative weighting could raise the Sharpe ratio to 0.97. In plain terms, the chart says the existing ingredients are strong, but a different recipe of the same four funds could have delivered better risk-adjusted performance historically, without changing which ETFs are held.
The overall dividend yield is about 1.26%, which is modest and consistent with a growth-focused equity mix. Yield is the cash income paid out each year as a percentage of portfolio value. The highest-yielding ETF here is the international fund at 2.70%, while the small-cap value and broad US index sit around 1–1.3%, and the momentum ETF is lowest at 0.70%. This pattern points to returns historically being driven more by price appreciation and factor tilts than by income. For someone tracking total return, dividends are a smaller component of the story compared with capital growth and volatility management.
The portfolio’s weighted ongoing cost (TER) is about 0.08% per year, which is impressively low for a multi-ETF, factor-tilted setup. TER, or Total Expense Ratio, is the annual fee charged by the funds, taken directly from returns. The broad US and international ETFs are especially cheap, and even the factor funds are reasonably priced. Low costs matter because they compound: every fraction of a percent saved each year stays invested and can grow over decades. Compared with many actively managed funds, this fee level aligns well with cost-efficient practices and supports the portfolio’s ability to keep more of any gross returns it earns.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
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.
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey