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 fits someone who’s young at heart, allergic to bonds, and kind of enjoys market drama. Think long time horizon, strong risk tolerance, and a “growth first, comfort later” mindset. They’re fine seeing their account drop 30%+ if the long-term payoff looks juicy enough, and they overcompensate by sprinkling in extra funds instead of streamlining. Planning style is: aggressive, loosely organized, but not totally reckless — there is global exposure and some value and size diversification. This person is likely more focused on building a big future pile than near-term income and is betting that time in the market will forgive structural untidiness.
This “portfolio” looks less like a plan and more like you panic-bought every Vanguard equity fund you recognized. You’ve got a target date fund (which is already a full portfolio) sitting next to a world fund, an S&P 500 fund, a tech fund, and extra small caps stacked on top. That’s not diversification, that’s duplication. It’s like ordering five combo meals because they all looked good on the menu. The overlap means you’re taking basically the same stock market ride multiple times. Cleaning this up into a simpler core plus a clearly defined tilt would make the whole thing easier to manage and actually understand.
Historically this thing has ripped: a 16.7% CAGR is bonkers-good. CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) is basically “average speed” over the trip, including potholes. But you also ate a max drawdown of about –34%, meaning a third of the value vanished at one point. That’s the emotional “can you sleep at night?” test. Against a typical global stock index, this sits on the hotter side, thanks in large part to the tech overload. Just remember: past data is like yesterday’s weather — helpful, but it doesn’t guarantee tomorrow won’t throw hail at your face.
The Monte Carlo results are hilariously optimistic: median outcome around +692%, with an average simulated return of 17.8%. Monte Carlo is basically running thousands of “what if” market paths using historical-style randomness, like rolling dice on your financial future. The good news: only 6 out of 1,000 simulations lost money. The bad news: all of this leans heavily on past behavior of a very strong market era. Simulations love to assume the future behaves like the past, which real life delights in disproving. Treat those big projected gains as “possible” not “promised,” and consider whether this risk level still works if returns are merely normal instead of story-worthy.
Asset classes here are a joke: 97% stocks, 2% bonds, 1% cash. This is an almost pure equity rocket with a decorative sprinkle of fixed income. Calling this “broadly diversified” is technically true within stocks, but across asset classes it’s very much “all eggs, one basket… but many colors.” High stock exposure fits a long time horizon and strong stomach, but it also means brutal hits in crashes. Bonds are like shock absorbers: they don’t make the car faster, they just keep your teeth from rattling out. If you want less emotional whiplash, nudging up that bond slice over time wouldn’t be the worst idea.
Sector-wise, this is a tech worship shrine: ~40% in technology, far above broad market weight. Then you’ve got reasonable chunks in financials and industrials, and token offerings in everything else. It’s basically “Tech and Friends.” When tech wins, this slaps. When tech stumbles, the whole portfolio limps because so much of your fate is tied to one theme. Sector tilts can be fun, but this is more of an obsession than a tilt. Dialing that tech share closer to a normal market level, or at least making sure the rest isn’t just highly correlated growth, would make downturns a lot less painful.
Geography screams “USA first and second and maybe a bit of the rest”: about 72% North America, then small slices of Europe, Japan, and emerging markets. For a U.S. investor, some home bias is normal, but this is basically betting that the U.S. stays the undisputed champ indefinitely. That might work, but if leadership shifts or the dollar gets punched, you’re underexposed elsewhere. The surprisingly sensible bit is that you do have some non-U.S. exposure through total world and international funds. To make the global story real, not just decorative, raising the proportion in non-U.S. stocks to something closer to global market weights would spread political and economic risk better.
Market cap mix is actually one of the more thoughtfully chaotic parts: roughly 39% mega, 26% big, 17% mid, 10% small, 5% micro. Translation: mostly large, serious companies with a noticeable “spicy” tilt to small and micro caps. Those Avantis small-cap value funds are your chaos gremlins — they can outperform long-term but swing like they’re on energy drinks. Compared to a plain global index, you’re leaning more into the scrappy underdogs. That can pay off but expect more noise. If the ride ever feels too wild, trimming the small and micro slice is one of the most direct ways to calm the roller coaster.
Your overlapping core holdings are basically three ways of buying the same market: S&P 500, Total World, and the 2065 target date fund all move in near-lockstep. Correlation just means how similarly things move; high correlation is like all your roommates working at the same company — one layoff hits everyone. The portfolio looks diversified on paper, but a lot of it will sink or swim together. That’s wasted complexity. Dropping redundant broad funds and sticking to one simple core, then layering intentional tilts (like small-cap value or moderate tech) would give you clearer control and slightly more meaningful diversification.
Total yield around 1.5% is basically “don’t expect income, this is a growth engine.” That lines up with the heavy tech and equity focus, since growthy companies prefer reinvesting profits over paying fat dividends. Dividend yield is just how much cash you get back yearly compared to your investment, like rent from your stocks. Here, the Avantis and international funds do some lifting, but the portfolio is clearly not built for living off payouts. For a long-term growth focus, that’s fine. Just don’t confuse low yield with “worse” — it just means the payoff is expected more from price growth than from regular cash checks.
Costs are… annoyingly good. Total TER around 0.10% is impressively low for a portfolio this messy. It’s like you built a needlessly complicated Rube Goldberg machine that, somehow, runs on cheap electricity. Vanguard’s funds are famously frugal, and even the Avantis stuff, while pricier, doesn’t drag the average into painful territory. Fees compound silently over decades, so keeping them this low is a big win. The only real jab here: you’re paying extra complexity “costs” in mental overhead and overlap rather than in expense ratios. Simplifying to fewer funds while keeping this low-cost mindset would be a nice combo of brain-saver and wallet-saver.
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.
Risk versus return here is tilted hard toward “send it.” The portfolio sits closer to the “high risk high potential reward” corner than any calm, balanced efficient mix. The Efficient Frontier is just the nerdy curve showing the best return you can reasonably expect for each risk level; you’re choosing a point way up the risk ladder. Historically, you’ve been rewarded, but that’s partly luck of the era. The biggest inefficiency isn’t wild risk — it’s redundant holdings pretending to diversify. Swapping multiple overlapping cores for one clear anchor plus deliberate risk tilts would push you closer to a cleaner, more efficient balance without killing the growth vibe.
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.