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.
Growth Investors
This setup suits an investor comfortable with meaningful ups and downs in pursuit of higher long-term growth. They likely have a multi-decade horizon, focus more on wealth-building than on near-term income, and are okay watching portfolio values swing sharply during corrections. A moderate-to-high risk tolerance fits here, with confidence in global equity markets and a willingness to stay invested through recessions. This kind of investor generally prefers low fees, broad stock exposure, and is less concerned about holding bonds or cash for stability. They tend to be patient, systematic contributors rather than frequent traders, and they accept that strong historical returns come with the possibility of deep but temporary drawdowns.
This portfolio is almost entirely in stock ETFs, with no meaningful bonds and only a tiny cash slice. The biggest pieces are growth and financials, together making up just over half the portfolio, backed by international and tech exposure, plus smaller world and energy allocations. Compared with a typical broad global benchmark that mixes stocks and bonds, this setup is clearly more growth-tilted and more concentrated in specific segments. That matters because stocks alone can swing a lot more in bad markets. If the ride ever feels too bumpy, shifting a portion into steadier assets and reducing overlap between similar growth-heavy funds could make the overall experience smoother.
Historically, this mix has been very strong: a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 16% is excellent. CAGR is just the “average yearly speed” of growth, like averaging your speed over a long road trip. The trade-off is clear in the max drawdown of about -36%, meaning at one point the portfolio dropped more than a third from a peak. Also, 90% of gains came from just 36 days, showing that missing a handful of big up days would have hurt returns. Past results like this are encouraging, but they can’t guarantee the future, so it’s helpful to decide whether this level of ups and downs still feels acceptable.
The Monte Carlo analysis runs 1,000 different “what-if” market paths using historical patterns to see a range of possible outcomes. Monte Carlo is basically a big set of randomized scenarios, like rolling loaded dice many times to see typical and extreme results. Here, the 5th percentile ending value at 78.9% means tough scenarios could leave the portfolio down, while the median (50th percentile) suggests strong growth and the 67th percentile even higher gains. An average simulated annual return above 17% looks great, but it is still just a model built on past data. It’s useful for framing expectations, not as a promise, so aligning contributions and risk comfort around the lower and middle outcomes is usually more realistic.
The asset-class picture is straightforward: about 98% in stocks, with roughly 1% each in cash and “other.” This is a textbook growth profile and lines up with the stated risk score of 5/7 and “Profile_Growth” classification. Many broad benchmarks mix in bonds and other defensive assets, so this portfolio sits on the aggressive side by comparison. Being “Broadly Diversified” within stocks is a plus, but diversification across asset classes is still limited. For someone wanting to stay fully growth-focused, staying the course makes sense. If a bit more stability is desirable, gradually introducing a small slice of lower-volatility assets could help dampen big drawdowns without changing the overall growth mindset too much.
Sector-wise, financials at 33% and technology at 30% dominate, with everything else in the single digits. That’s a clear tilt: more than 60% combined in two areas. This composition partly comes from the dedicated financials and tech ETFs plus the growth ETF’s own tech bias. The upside is strong participation when these areas lead, and your sector mix broadly resembles many growth-heavy benchmarks, which is a good sign for return potential. The downside is higher sensitivity if either sector stumbles or if interest rates and regulation hit financials and tech at the same time. Trimming overlap in growth and tech-heavy positions, or modestly boosting underrepresented areas, could make sector risk a bit more balanced.
Geographically, about 74% sits in North America, with Europe developed around 11% and the rest spread thinly across Asia, Japan, emerging regions, and others. This is very similar to many global equity benchmarks that lean heavily toward the U.S. market, so the global footprint is generally well-aligned and supports the “Broadly Diversified” label. The benefit is exposure to large, established markets with deep liquidity and strong corporate governance. The trade-off is that returns become heavily linked to U.S. market cycles and currency. For someone wanting more global balance, a small tilt toward non‑U.S. holdings could reduce dependency on one region, but the current setup is quite conventional for a growth-focused U.S.-based investor.
By market capitalization, the portfolio is anchored in mega and big companies: 45% mega, 30% big, 17% medium, with only small and micro making up about 6% combined. Market cap simply measures company size by stock market value. This size profile is very much in line with broad global equity benchmarks and supports stability, since larger firms tend to be more resilient than tiny, speculative names. It also means less exposure to the sometimes explosive, sometimes painful swings of very small stocks. For someone happy with mainstream growth and lower single-name risk, this is a solid setup. If more return potential and volatility are desired, a modest increase in smaller companies could be explored carefully.
Correlation describes how investments move together; a correlation close to 1 means they typically rise and fall in tandem. Here, the growth ETF and the information technology ETF are highly correlated, which makes sense because growth funds are often tech-heavy already. That overlap reduces diversification benefits, especially in downturns led by tech or high-growth stocks, because both pieces are likely to drop at the same time. The rest of the portfolio is also strongly equity-correlated, as they’re all stock funds. A practical step would be to simplify by reducing overlapping holdings that behave almost identically and redeploying that slice into areas that historically zig when others zag, improving overall risk spread without necessarily lowering return expectations.
The overall dividend yield of about 1.53% is on the low-to-moderate side, consistent with a growth-focused, equity-heavy approach. Dividend yield is just the annual cash paid out as a percentage of the current price, like getting a small “rent” check from your shares. The highest payouts here come from the international and energy funds, while growth and tech stay low, which is typical because those companies often reinvest profits instead of paying them out. For someone prioritizing total return and comfortable selling shares as needed for cash, this setup is reasonable. If future income becomes more important, gradually leaning more toward higher-yielding broad funds or slightly increasing the income-oriented slice could help.
Total costs are impressively low at around 0.07% overall, which is a big strength. Each ETF sits in the 0.04%–0.10% expense range, and that’s firmly in low-fee territory. Expense ratio is like a small annual “membership fee” taken automatically from assets; keeping it low leaves more of the growth in your pocket over time. This aligns very well with best practices and supports better long-term performance compared with higher-cost products. At this point, there’s limited benefit in chasing even lower fees unless it also simplifies the lineup or improves diversification. The main focus can sensibly stay on asset mix and risk balance rather than cost-cutting.
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.
On risk versus return, this portfolio sits toward the upper end of the Efficient Frontier for an all‑equity mix. The Efficient Frontier is the set of allocations that give the best possible trade‑off between risk and return using the existing building blocks. Efficiency here doesn’t mean maximum diversification or lowest volatility; it means the highest expected return for each unit of risk taken. Because some holdings are highly correlated and overlapping, especially in growth and tech, there’s room to tighten things up. Streamlining those similar positions and redistributing within the current fund set could lower volatility slightly or improve potential returns without changing the overall growth character or adding new products.
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
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.