Concentrated US large cap portfolio with strong index exposure and modest income tilt
Report created on Apr 20, 2026Risk profile
4/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
FX Fidelity 500 Index Fund
FXAIX - US3159117502 50.00% -
VO Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO - US9229083632 40.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD - US8085247976 10.00%
This portfolio is very straightforward: three US stock funds, all tracking broad large‑cap companies, with half in a Fidelity S&P 500 index fund, 40% in a Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, and 10% in a Schwab dividend ETF. So 90% is effectively classic US large‑cap index exposure, and 10% adds a dividend tilt. This kind of structure is easy to understand and monitor because it’s built from widely followed indices rather than niche strategies. The trade‑off is that diversification is limited to one asset class, one country, and mostly one segment of the stock market. The low diversification score reflects that concentration, even though the underlying indices themselves hold many individual companies.
Growth
Historically, from 2016 to 2026, $1,000 in this portfolio grew to about $3,911, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.67%. CAGR is like your average speed on a long road trip, smoothing out bumps along the way. This result has essentially matched the US market (only 0.12% per year behind) and clearly outpaced the global market by about 2.5% per year. The max drawdown, or largest peak‑to‑trough fall, was roughly ‑34%, very similar to both benchmarks. That shows the portfolio has behaved like a pure US equity holding: strong returns, but with meaningful drops during stress, particularly visible in the sharp early‑2020 decline and relatively quick recovery.
Projection
The Monte Carlo projection simulates many possible 15‑year paths based on past return and volatility patterns, like running 1,000 alternate histories. In these simulations, the median outcome turns $1,000 into about $2,701, an annualized 8.17% across all paths. The “likely” middle band ranges from roughly $1,815 to $4,306, while extreme cases stretch from near break‑even to almost eightfold growth. This highlights that even with the same underlying assumptions, outcomes can vary a lot. The 74% chance of finishing positive underlines that equity exposure has historically been rewarded over long periods, though not guaranteed. These are statistical scenarios, not promises, and actual future markets can differ notably from the past patterns used here.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of this portfolio sits in stocks, with 0% in bonds, cash, or alternatives. That creates a clean, equity‑only exposure but explains why the risk classification sits mid‑range despite holding only broad index funds. Asset class mix is one of the biggest drivers of both risk and return: stocks tend to grow more over long periods but swing more in the short term than bonds or cash. Here, any cushion that a bond or cash allocation might offer during downturns is absent by design. The historical drawdown around one‑third shows what a fully equity portfolio can experience when markets fall sharply. Over time, returns have compensated for that risk, but the ride is inherently bumpy.
Sectors
- Technology 31%
- Financials 12%
- Health Care 11%
- Telecommunications 10%
- Industrials 9%
- Consumer Staples 7%
- Consumer Discretionary 5%
- Energy 5%
- Consumer Discretionary 5%
- Utilities 2%
- Real Estate 2%
- Basic Materials 2%
Sector‑wise, the portfolio is tilted heavily toward technology at 31%, with financials, health care, telecom, and industrials making up most of the rest. This pattern is very similar to a typical US large‑cap index today, where tech and related industries dominate index weights. That alignment with benchmark sector weights is a positive sign for diversification within equities: you’re not making a large active bet on a single niche industry. At the same time, the sizable tech share means results are naturally sensitive to the fortunes of big technology and communication‑related companies. During periods when interest rates rise or tech sentiment cools, portfolios like this can see larger short‑term swings than more defensive, sector‑balanced mixes.
Regions
- North America 99%
Geographically, the portfolio is almost entirely in North America, with 99% exposure. This is consistent with a pure US‑listed equity strategy but quite different from a global market index, where non‑US stocks make up a large share of total world market value. The positive side is that the portfolio has fully captured the strong performance of US large caps over the last decade, which is visible in the outperformance versus the global benchmark. The flip side is that economic, political, or currency issues specific to the US will directly influence almost the entire portfolio. There is very little built‑in offset from other regions that might perform differently at various points in the economic cycle.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 42%
- Large-cap 39%
- Mid-cap 18%
- Small-cap 1%
By market size, about 81% of the portfolio is in mega‑ and large‑cap companies, with mid‑caps around 18% and only 1% in small‑caps. This is very much in line with a standard S&P 500‑style allocation where the largest companies dominate index weightings. Big companies often bring more stable business models, deeper liquidity, and usually more analyst coverage, which can make price moves somewhat more predictable than tiny stocks. However, historically, smaller companies have sometimes had different return patterns than mega‑caps, especially in certain economic environments. The current structure stays close to the mainstream large‑cap core of the market, which simplifies tracking and understanding performance but provides limited exposure to the distinct behavior of smaller firms.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 3.03%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AA Apple Inc 2.66%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 1.97%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 1.46%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 1.20%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
AV Broadcom Inc 1.05%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 0.96%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 0.90%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 0.75%
Part of fund(s):- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
-
BR Berkshire Hathaway Inc 0.63%
Part of fund(s):- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
- Top 10 total 14.60%
Looking through to the top holdings across funds, familiar giants like NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Tesla appear prominently. Because both S&P 500 funds and the dividend ETF can hold some of the same names, these companies show up more than once, creating overlap. The analysis only covers ETF top‑10 lists, so total overlap is probably higher than reported. This “hidden concentration” means that while you own many individual stocks indirectly, your results are still strongly tied to how a relatively small group of mega‑caps performs. The overlap also explains why the portfolio tracks the US market so closely: its biggest building blocks are the same companies driving broad index returns.
Factors
Factor exposure is broadly neutral across all six tracked dimensions: value, size, momentum, quality, yield, and low volatility all sit near the 50% “market‑like” mark. Factors are like investing “ingredients” that can help explain why some stocks behave differently from others over time. For example, value stocks tend to be cheaper relative to fundamentals, and momentum stocks have recently done well. In this portfolio, no factor stands out as a strong tilt toward or away from any particular style. That suggests the behavior should resemble a broad market index rather than swing differently in specific environments like value booms or momentum crashes. The small dividend ETF slice adds a bit of yield flavor, but not enough to reshape the overall factor profile.
Risk contribution
-
Fidelity 500 Index Fund
Weight: 50.00% 50.9% -
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Weight: 40.00% 40.6% -
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Weight: 10.00% 8.5%
Risk contribution shows how much each holding drives the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from its weight. Here, the Fidelity fund is 50% of the portfolio and contributes about 51% of risk, and the Vanguard ETF is 40% of the portfolio and contributes about 41% of risk. Their risk shares line up almost exactly with their sizes, which is expected since they track very similar indices. The Schwab dividend ETF is 10% of the portfolio but only 8.45% of risk, reflecting its slightly lower volatility. Overall, risk is spread proportionally across positions rather than dominated by a single outsized holding. The flip side is that concentration at the fund level is high: three positions together account for 100% of the portfolio’s risk.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationFidelity 500 Index FundVanguard S&P 500 ETF
Correlation measures how closely different investments move together, on a scale from ‑1 (always opposite) to +1 (always in sync). The S&P 500 mutual fund and the S&P 500 ETF are “almost identical” here, meaning their prices tend to rise and fall together. That’s expected, since they track the same underlying index. High correlation within a portfolio reduces the diversification benefit you get from holding multiple positions. In this case, owning both S&P 500 vehicles doesn’t create meaningful diversification between them; instead, it mostly duplicates exposure using two wrappers. The dividend ETF likely moves broadly with the market as well, though with some differences driven by its yield focus, so overall the portfolio behaves like a very concentrated US equity block.
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 shows the current portfolio sitting on or very close to the efficient frontier. The efficient frontier is the curve representing the best possible return for each level of risk using just these three holdings in different mixes. The Sharpe ratio, which measures return per unit of risk above a risk‑free rate, is 0.64 for the current mix, versus 0.81 at the optimal point and 0.76 at minimum variance. That means tiny reweighting changes could modestly improve risk‑adjusted returns, but the portfolio is already broadly efficient. Importantly, this efficiency is measured only within these existing funds, not against adding new asset classes or regions, where the frontier might shift further.
Dividends
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 1.10%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 3.40%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 1.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 1.33%
The overall dividend yield for the portfolio is about 1.33%, a bit higher than the 1.10% yield of the two S&P 500 funds alone. That small boost comes from the 10% allocation to the Schwab dividend ETF, which yields around 3.40%. Dividends are cash payments from companies, and over long periods they can make up a meaningful slice of total return, especially when reinvested. Here, the portfolio clearly leans more toward price growth than income, as reflected in the modest overall yield. The dividend ETF acts more as a subtle income enhancement rather than transforming the portfolio into a high‑yield strategy. This keeps the portfolio’s behavior largely aligned with a growth‑oriented US index profile.
Ongoing product costs
- Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.02%
- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF 0.06%
- Vanguard S&P 500 ETF 0.03%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.03%
Costs are impressively low, with a total expense ratio (TER) around 0.03% per year. TER is the ongoing annual fee charged by funds, taken directly out of assets, a bit like a small membership fee for using each fund. At this level, costs are almost negligible and align with the most competitive index products on the market. Over decades, cost differences can compound significantly, so starting from a very low base is a strong structural advantage. It means more of the portfolio’s gross returns are kept rather than paid away in fees. Combined with simple, transparent holdings, this cost structure supports efficient long‑term compounding without the drag often seen in more expensive, complex strategies.
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