Change the scenario
Explore starting amounts, monthly contributions, and a modeled taxable or IRA setting. Use invented numbers—your actual finances are not needed.
Analyses the mix.Generates ranked alternatives.
We don’t trade on your behalf. We research ETF alternatives using the inputs you choose, so you can compare the trade-offs and make your own decisions.
Rigorous analysis and simulation deliver a dozen portfolios, ranked using our proprietary growth, stability, and risk formulas.
Built on published financial and academic research.
Educational analytics. Rigorous mathematics.
No investment advice. No fiduciary relationship.
Start with a few
clear scores.
Put alternatives side by side and see the trade-offs quickly. Growth, risk, and ranking scores give you a starting point for comparison.
Then go deeper into drawdowns, volatility, costs, and the assumptions behind each result.
Two mixes. The same lens.
| Historical comparison | Seed mix | Alternative A |
|---|---|---|
| Annualized net growth | 12.2% | 14.9% |
| Largest decline | 19.2% | 24.1% |
| Risk-limit score | 69.2 | 97.9 |
| f(Risk/Growth) | 3.11 | 4.94 |
| True Diversity HHI | 0.0274 | 0.0196 |
The mix behind the numbers.
Select a fund to see what’s inside.
Different ETF names can still hide overlapping investments. Inspect disclosed holdings alongside data coverage.
Look inside
the mix.
See each ETF’s weight and role, then look through disclosed holdings for overlapping exposure and concentration.
Coverage stays visible, so you can distinguish what the data shows from what remains unknown.
Inside VTI
U.S. equity ETF · illustrative weights
- AAPL6.3%
- MSFT5.1%
- NVDA6.9%
- AMZN3.4%
Inside VXUS
International equity ETF · illustrative weights
- 2330.TW4.0%
- 0700.HK0.9%
- ASML.AS1.4%
- NESN.SW0.6%
Inside BND
Bond categories · illustrative weights
- U.S. Treasuries47%
- Agency MBS22%
- Corporate bonds26%
- Agency bonds5%
Inside GLDM
Gold trust · illustrative exposure
- Gold100%
Look back. Test forward.
Simulate what comes next.
Start at a point in the past. Search the history available then, test the frozen mix on what happened next, and explore thousands of possible futures beyond today.
Look back.
Generate using history through 2016
Search earlier market data to generate ETF alternatives. Freeze the mixes before looking at the later test period.
Test forward.
Test on observed history: 2016–2026
See how those frozen mixes held up on later historical data that wasn’t used to select them.
Explore possible futures.
Simulate beyond 2026
Recombine blocks of strong and weak historical months into thousands of possible paths, including gains, setbacks, and recoveries.
Illustrative dates and durations; actual windows depend on available history and run settings. Simulated paths explore possibilities; they do not predict the future.
YOU SET THE QUESTION
Different budgets.
Different budgets.
Different levels of exploration.
Keep the money in the example separate from the work done by the computer.
Change the search depth
Quick, Balanced, Thorough, and Max budgets control how much search and simulation work is requested.
Change the resources
A separate effort setting controls the compute resources used for that work. More resources do not guarantee a better result.
BUILT ON PUBLISHED RESEARCH
Research-backed, rigorous methods.
Compare growth, downside, costs, and search stability. Historical checks and conditional simulations show evidence and limits; they do not establish future performance.
When enough history is available, we reserve later data for testing and freeze rankings before that test. Reports show assumptions, missing evidence, and model limits.
CURIOUS ABOUT THE NUMBERS?
The math is understandable.
Compounding, drawdown, and simulations—explained with examples at a 10th-grade math level.