017 COMPARISONS
Allocation Changes
Compare how changing an asset, weight, geography, duration, or weighting rule alters the portfolio trade-off.
- VTI Allocation Test
- Gold: 0% vs 10% vs 20%
- Three-Fund vs 60/40
EXPLORE / PORTFOLIO COMPARISONS
Portfolio backtest examples with real historical results.
Compare ETF and multi-asset portfolios across allocation, contributions, rebalancing, and different start dates.
BROWSE BY PORTFOLIO DECISION
Start with the change you want to understand.
Comparisons are organized by the decision being tested—not by an isolated ticker or asset page.
021 COMPARISONS
Contribution Strategies
Keep the assets fixed and test how lump-sum and recurring contribution schedules change investor outcomes.
- DCA vs Lump Sum
031 COMPARISONS
Rebalancing Rules
Hold the allocation constant and isolate what changes when the portfolio is rebalanced on a different schedule.
- Annual vs No Rebalancing
042 COMPARISONS
Consistency & Assumptions
Test whether a conclusion survives different start dates, inflation treatment, and historical environments.
- Portfolio Start-Date Risk
- Inflation-Adjusted Returns
FEATURED COMPARISONS
Questions investors repeatedly return to.
Begin with a familiar portfolio decision, then follow the related concepts and comparisons naturally.
01ONE VARIABLE
VTI Allocation Test
BASE100% VTI · $10,000 initial
→CHANGE90% VTI / 10% GLD, or 70% VTI / 30% BND
OBSERVED RESULT
View portfolio comparison ↗Moving 10% from VTI to GLD changed ending value by $276 and maximum drawdown by +1.7 pts versus 100% VTI.
02ONE VARIABLE
Gold: 0% vs 10% vs 20%
BASE60% equities / 40% bonds / 0% gold
→CHANGE10% and 20% gold funded from equities
OBSERVED RESULT
View portfolio comparison ↗In this particular window, higher gold weights improved both return and drawdown: 20% gold added $1,397 and reduced maximum drawdown by 2.65 points. The result should be stress-tested because the period includes an unusually strong recent gold cycle.
03ONE VARIABLE
Three-Fund vs 60/40
BASE60% US equities / 40% US bonds
→CHANGEUS equity / international equity / bond portfolio
OBSERVED RESULT
View portfolio comparison ↗Adding an 18% international-equity sleeve lowered the ending value by $1,919 and did not improve maximum drawdown in this US-led decade. That is evidence of period dependence, not proof that international diversification is structurally ineffective.
04ONE VARIABLE
US vs Global Equity
BASEUS-only equity sleeve
→CHANGEUS and international equity sleeve
OBSERVED RESULT
View portfolio comparison ↗The global-equity sleeve lagged the US-only version by 0.88 percentage points annualized in a decade dominated by US equities. Its maximum drawdown was 0.34 points deeper, showing that diversification can disappoint for a long interval without becoming logically invalid.
05ONE VARIABLE
Short vs Long Duration
BASEIntermediate-duration bond sleeve
→CHANGEShort- and long-duration bond sleeves
OBSERVED RESULT
View portfolio comparison ↗The short-duration sleeve produced the highest ending value and the shallowest drawdown. Long-duration Treasuries finished $3,326 below the BND baseline and had a 6.48-point deeper drawdown, largely reflecting the 2022 rate shock.
06ONE VARIABLE
Equal vs Market-Cap Weight
BASEMarket-cap-weighted equity sleeve
→CHANGEEqual-weighted equity sleeve
OBSERVED RESULT
View portfolio comparison ↗The market-cap-weighted portfolio ended $4,102 higher and had a 3.11-point shallower drawdown. This window strongly rewarded mega-cap leadership; the result measures that historical regime, not an unconditional superiority of cap weighting.