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.
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.
Balanced Investors
This setup suits someone who calls themselves “balanced” but secretly enjoys a bit of chaos. They probably care about evidence, like low costs and broad diversification, yet can’t resist tilting toward value because they’ve read at least one too many investment books. Time horizon is clearly long; this isn’t built for a five-year “see how it goes” experiment, more like a multi-decade “I’ll ride the storms” attitude. Risk tolerance is moderate-to-high, pretending to be moderate. They accept that big drops will happen, as long as the long-term odds feel stacked in their favor and the fees stay brutally low.
Structurally this is the IKEA starter pack of portfolios: three funds and vibes. On paper it screams “lazy global allocation,” but then there’s that 15% wedge in global small-cap value quietly turning the dial from chill to “actually I have opinions.” For a “balanced” label, 100% in stocks plus a chunky small-value tilt is more caffeinated than advertised. The setup is clean and simple, but it’s also deceptively punchy. Takeaway: this is not the sleepy middle-of-the-road mix the risk score suggests; it’s a concentrated one-bet-on-equities structure dressed up as a sensible adult.
In 1.5 years, turning €1,000 into €1,157 with a 10.30% CAGR looks nice, but let’s not frame it. CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is just your average speed over a short drive — not a full road trip. You beat both the US market and global market over this tiny window, but that’s like winning one set and declaring yourself Wimbledon champion. Max drawdown of -20.22% is solidly “equity investor, welcome to mood swings.” Past data over this short period is basically yesterday’s weather: interesting, not prophetic. Takeaway: enjoy the outperformance, but don’t plan your retirement party around it.
Asset class “diversification” here is easy to summarize: stocks, and absolutely nothing else. It’s 100% equity, 0% anything-that-helps-you-sleep. For a “balanced investor” label, this is more like “balanced… if bonds never existed.” That doesn’t make it wrong, just hilariously optimistic about the future of global companies and your stomach for drawdowns. When markets get ugly, this setup goes down with the rest of the ship, no floaties attached. Takeaway: if this is part of a bigger picture that includes safer stuff elsewhere, fine; if it’s the whole picture, you’re braver than the risk score suggests.
Sector-wise, this is a closet indexer with a tech crush: tech leads at 20%, but financials at 19% and industrials at 14% keep things from turning into full “AI-or-die” mode. The spread is actually pretty balanced for an equity-only portfolio — no single sector hijacking the steering wheel. That said, when everything is broad and vanilla, you’re basically signing up to ride whatever global business cycle and rate regime happens next, no special protection, no special edge. Takeaway: the sector mix is reasonably sane; the real flavor here isn’t sectors, it’s the factor tilts lurking underneath.
Geographically, this is “Yes the world exists but the US still runs the show.” North America at 53% is the main character, with developed Europe at 30% trying to be relevant. Japan and the rest of the world split the crumbs. For a European-based investor, there’s a familiar home-ish nod via the Europe ETF, but let’s be honest: the US still calls most of the shots here. The upside is broad global reach; the downside is you’re heavily tied to a few big developed regions’ fate. Takeaway: it’s not “America or bust,” but it’s definitely “America, then the usual supporting cast.”
Market cap tilt: 43% mega, 30% large, 14% mid, then a feisty 12% in small and micro. Translation: mostly grown-ups running the show, with a noisy group of tiny troublemakers invited by that global small-cap value slice. You’re not doing anything extreme like going all-in on minnows, but you have enough small stuff to feel it when volatility spikes. The mega caps give you market-like behavior; the small/micro exposure adds some chaos and potential extra juice. Takeaway: this is a mostly mainstream size profile with a deliberate “I don’t only buy the obvious stuff” twist.
The look-through is basically a greatest hits playlist of mega-cap darlings: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Tesla — the usual suspects doing their usual heavy lifting. And that’s just from top-10 positions; actual overlap is almost certainly higher. You think you own three funds, but underneath it’s one enormous bet on the global equity popularity contest, lightly sprinkled with small-cap value weirdos. Hidden concentration means when those mega names sneeze, your portfolio catches a cold. Takeaway: even with broad funds, checking overlap matters — otherwise you’re just buying the same ten stocks with extra steps.
The factor profile is where the portfolio stops pretending to be boring. Value at 85% is a full-on personality choice: strong tilt toward “cheap and possibly ugly” over “shiny and popular.” Size at 14% means a big tilt away from small caps overall, interestingly, even though you added a small-cap value fund — the rest of the portfolio is that large-cap heavy. Factor exposure is just the hidden ingredients list explaining your behavior in different markets. Takeaway: this is a hardcore value believer without a big size bet; if growth keeps winning, this mix will sulk, and if value finally has its day, you’ll look unnervingly smart.
Risk contribution is the “who’s actually rocking the boat” metric, and here it’s pretty literal. That 65% Amundi world fund contributes 66.84% of total risk — basically doing exactly what its weight says. The 15% Avantis small-cap value chunk, though, contributes 17% of risk, punching slightly above its weight thanks to being spicier. Vanguard Europe is the kid at the back of the class: 20% weight, only 16.16% of risk. Takeaway: there’s no single psycho position here, but trimming or boosting that small-cap value slice is the lever that meaningfully changes how wild the ride feels.
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, this portfolio is like the student who passes but clearly didn’t sit in the optimal seat. A Sharpe ratio of 0.63 versus 0.84 for the optimal mix means you’re leaving efficiency on the table — same ingredients, weaker recipe. The efficient frontier is just the curve of best possible return for each risk level using what you already hold. You’re below that curve, meaning a smarter reweighting of the same three funds could improve the deal. That same-risk optimized return of 16.13% versus 10.96% says it bluntly: your allocation is underachieving relative to what it could be.
Costs are where this thing quietly flexes. A total TER of 0.02% is so low it feels like a pricing error, and the 0.10% on the Europe ETF is still firmly in “we’re not getting robbed” territory. Fees are the one thing you can almost control, and here you’ve basically told the industry, “You get crumbs.” You’re not paying for star managers, fancy branding, or someone’s London office rent. Takeaway: with costs this low, if performance disappoints, you can’t blame fees — it’s purely the asset mix and market reality, not the house skimming too much off the top.
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