PORTFOLIO COMPARISON / ONE VARIABLE

VTI Backtest: Gold and Bond Allocation Changes

Invest $10,000 once and test two controlled changes: replace 10% of VTI with GLD, or replace 30% of VTI with BND.

Contribution comparisonCommon growth-investor questionNasdaq-100 contribution and allocation testLed its reference in this test

HISTORICAL BACKTEST RESULT

100% VTI vs 90% VTI / 10% GLD

100% VTI 90% VTI / 10% GLD
2020-06-02 → 2026-07-31 · 1542 common sessions
100% VTI$23,61515.0% annualized · -26.2% max drawdown
90% VTI / 10% GLD$23,89115.2% annualized · -24.6% max drawdown

Historical calculation from cached Marketstack EOD data. Annual rebalancing, $10,000 initial value, nominal USD before fees and taxes. The disclosed portfolio definitions—not an AI model—produce the result.

RUN THIS PORTFOLIO

Change the rule, then compare the new result.

Build your own comparison →

WHAT TO COMPARE

Read the trade-off as a system.

  1. 01Ending value
  2. 02Annualized return
  3. 03Maximum drawdown
  4. 04Path dependence

WHEN TO LOOK

Locate where the difference appeared.

2020-06-02–2026-07-31Committed free-plan snapshotAnnual rebalance

A useful comparison shows whether an advantage was broad or created by one unusually favorable period. Review the portfolio backtest methodology to understand how the same rules are applied across a shared data window.

OBSERVED RESULT / REAL MARKET DATA

What the comparison actually produced.

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

WINDOW2020-06-02 → 2026-07-31
CAPITAL$10,000 invested once at the first common observation
CALCULATIONMarketstack adjusted closes for VTI, BND, and GLD; annual rebalancing; nominal USD before fees and taxes. No live provider request during the page render.
PortfolioEnding valueAnnualized returnMaximum drawdown
100% VTI$23,61515.0%-26.2%
90% VTI / 10% GLD$23,89115.2%-24.6%
70% VTI / 30% BND$17,6759.7%-23.6%

STRATEGY CONTEXT

What this portfolio strategy means.

A short definition, the reason investors return to it, and the historical context behind the name. It is context for a backtest—not an investment recommendation.

What it is

This comparison starts with regular contributions to QQQ, an ETF designed to track the Nasdaq-100, then tests a clearly disclosed allocation change. It separates the contribution schedule from the asset mix, so the reader can see which part of the outcome came from putting money in gradually and which part came from the portfolio rule.

Why investors use it

People use a Nasdaq-100 contribution plan because it is a familiar way to build exposure to large non-financial growth companies while investing cash as it becomes available. The controlled comparison is useful when the real question is not whether the index rose, but whether a diversifier or different contribution rule changed the path, downside, or ending value.

Historical context

Dollar-cost averaging became a common retail-investing expression long before exchange-traded funds made automated recurring purchases simple. The Nasdaq-100 index dates to 1985; QQQ began trading in 1999. Neither history makes a particular allocation suitable today: contributions, fees, taxes, start date, and the concentration of the underlying index remain material assumptions.