EXPLORE / ALLOCATION CHANGES

Portfolio allocation comparisons

Compare how changing an asset, weight, geography, duration, or weighting rule alters the portfolio trade-off.

Start with the decision you want to test.

Each example keeps the portfolio rules visible so the measured difference remains interpretable.

01ONE VARIABLE

VTI Allocation Test

BASE100% VTI · $10,000 initial

CHANGE90% VTI / 10% GLD, or 70% VTI / 30% BND

Does reallocating part of a 100% VTI portfolio improve the return–drawdown trade-off?
OBSERVED RESULT

Moving 10% from VTI to GLD changed ending value by $276 and maximum drawdown by +1.7 pts versus 100% VTI.

View portfolio comparison ↗
02ONE VARIABLE

Gold: 0% vs 10% vs 20%

BASE60% equities / 40% bonds / 0% gold

CHANGE10% and 20% gold funded from equities

How much gold changes the portfolio meaningfully without allowing one favorable period to dominate the conclusion?
OBSERVED RESULT

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.

View portfolio comparison ↗
03ONE VARIABLE

Three-Fund vs 60/40

BASE60% US equities / 40% US bonds

CHANGEUS equity / international equity / bond portfolio

Does international diversification make a US-centered stock–bond portfolio more consistent across market conditions?
OBSERVED RESULT

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.

View portfolio comparison ↗
04ONE VARIABLE

US vs Global Equity

BASEUS-only equity sleeve

CHANGEUS and international equity sleeve

When did global diversification help, and how dependent is the conclusion on the selected starting decade?
OBSERVED RESULT

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.

View portfolio comparison ↗
05ONE VARIABLE

Short vs Long Duration

BASEIntermediate-duration bond sleeve

CHANGEShort- and long-duration bond sleeves

Is the drawdown protection from long-duration bonds stable across different inflation and rate environments?
OBSERVED RESULT

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.

View portfolio comparison ↗
06ONE VARIABLE

Equal vs Market-Cap Weight

BASEMarket-cap-weighted equity sleeve

CHANGEEqual-weighted equity sleeve

Does equal weighting add a stable portfolio advantage after concentration, turnover, and rebalancing are included?
OBSERVED RESULT

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.

View portfolio comparison ↗
07ONE VARIABLE

60/40 vs 40/60

BASE60% US equities / 40% US bonds

CHANGE40% US equities / 60% US bonds

How much historical growth was exchanged for a smaller drawdown when stocks fell from 60% to 40%?
OBSERVED RESULT

The 40/60 portfolio finished at $12,966 versus $15,978 for 60/40 over the same snapshot window.

View portfolio comparison ↗