Your risk dial: 100% stocks vs 60/40
Stocks grow faster. Bonds smooth the ride. But how much return do you actually give up for a calmer portfolio — and does the answer change based on when you look? This study runs both allocations through the same period and shows the real trade-off, with UCITS-compatible examples for European investors.
Some of the links on this site are affiliate links, meaning we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you if you sign up through them. This does not affect our reviews or recommendations — we only feature products we genuinely believe are useful for investors. This site provides educational content only, not personalized investment advice. Investments can lose value and past performance does not guarantee future results. You are responsible for your own financial decisions and for confirming the tax and legal rules that apply in your country.
What the data shows at a glance
Stylized paths based on Jan 2021 – Dec 2024. Numbers rounded for clarity — the trade-off direction is what counts.
- Stocks compound faster over long periods.
- More growth potential on every euro contributed.
- No bond allocation dragging on returns in bull markets.
- Simplicity: one ETF, one rule.
- Bonds absorb some of the shock in equity drawdowns.
- A smoother ride makes it easier to stay invested.
- Rebalancing between assets can slightly improve risk-adjusted returns.
- Better fit as you get closer to spending the money.
How this study works
Two simple allocations, same starting point, same period. The goal is intuition — not a backtest you optimise around.
100% in a broad equity index. In UCITS terms: something like IWDA (MSCI World) or VWRL (FTSE All-World) — both available to European investors.
No bonds, no rebalancing needed. Just global stocks, compounding over time.
60% stocks + 40% global aggregate bonds. In UCITS terms: IWDA or VWRL for equities, plus AGGH or VAGP for bonds.
Rebalanced once per year back to 60/40. All returns include dividends.
Both portfolios start at 1.00x and evolve using monthly total returns (price plus dividends). No expense ratios or taxes are included — the point is the structural trade-off, not a precise prediction.
The path is a stylized model based on January 2021 to December 2024, rounded for clarity. Change the window and the exact numbers move — but the growth-versus-stability trade-off stays similar across most long periods.
Note: 2022 was unusual — stocks and bonds fell together. That period compressed the gap between the two portfolios. Over longer windows, the divergence is typically larger.
Normalized portfolio growth — Jan 2021 to Dec 2024
Both portfolios start at 1.00x. The gap between the lines shows what you “pay” in lost return, or “save” in reduced drawdown, by turning the dial.
Stylized chart for intuition. Real outcomes depend on the exact period, instruments, and costs used. Do not use this to predict future returns.
What the data is telling you
The all-stock portfolio compounds faster but swings more. The 60/40 mix trades some growth for a smoother ride by holding bonds alongside stocks. The summary table uses the same paths as the chart.
What doesn’t change across different windows: more stocks means more potential growth and deeper drawdowns; more bonds means slower growth and shallower drawdowns. That structural relationship is stable even if the exact numbers aren’t.
| Portfolio | CAGR | Max drawdown | Worst 12-month |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100% Stocks | 3.1% | -9.2% | -7.4% |
| 60/40 Mix | 1.7% | -8.8% | -7.5% |
Numbers are illustrative and rounded, based on the same stylized paths used in the chart. This particular window (2021–2024) was compressed by the 2022 drawdown, which hit both stocks and bonds hard simultaneously. The CAGR gap is typically larger over longer windows.
Which dial fits your situation
The mix doesn’t have to be exactly 60/40 or exactly 100/0. Think of it as a dial: 80/20, 70/30, 60/40, 50/50. The right setting depends on your horizon and your stomach for volatility.
- You have 10+ years before you need the money.
- You can tolerate a 30–50% paper loss without selling.
- You don’t expect to panic during a typical bear market.
- You care more about maximizing long-run growth than smoothing the ride.
- You invest in broad, low-cost UCITS index ETFs (IWDA, VWRL, etc.).
- You are within 5–10 years of retiring or spending a large sum.
- Sharp drawdowns tempt you to “do something” with your portfolio.
- You prefer a smoother curve even if long-run returns are lower.
- You want a simple default that’s easy to automate and leave alone.
- You’re building toward a specific goal with a defined timeline.
How to act on this in practice
Pick a stock/bond split you can live with for years — including through a bad year. Be honest: if you would have sold in March 2020 or 2022, a 100/0 allocation probably isn’t right for you.
European investors cannot buy US ETFs like SPY or AGG due to PRIIPs rules. UCITS equivalents cover the same exposures: IWDA or VWRL for global equities, AGGH or VAGP for global bonds.
For a 60/40, pick a simple rule: rebalance once per year, or when either sleeve drifts more than 5–10 percentage points. Then follow it mechanically. See the rebalancing studies linked below.
The worst outcomes come from switching allocation after a big move — either buying more after a rally or cutting after a crash. Pick a level you can live with and let it run. Consistency beats every short-term adjustment.
Ready to set your own dial?
Both a 100% stocks and a 60/40 portfolio are easy to build with a handful of UCITS ETFs. IBKR is the strongest option for most European investors: low FX conversion costs, access to UCITS funds across all major exchanges, and transparent pricing. Trading 212 suits smaller amounts with no commission and fractional ETF investing.
EU Investor Cost Toolkit — 49 EUR
One spreadsheet, 11 tabs, 739 formulas. Broker comparison, UCITS vs US ETF drag, FX drag, spread cost, cadence breakeven, and a 30-year projection with charts. Enter your numbers once — get the full picture. 30-day money-back guarantee.
Get the toolkit (49 EUR) →Go deeper
Frequently asked questions
Is a 100% stock portfolio always too risky?
Not automatically. For someone with a very long horizon and high tolerance for drawdowns, 100% stocks can be a workable strategy. The cost is deeper and more frequent crashes that you have to sit through without panic-selling. If you have 15+ years and genuinely won’t touch the money, the all-equity case is strong.
Who is a 60/40 portfolio usually right for?
A 60/40 allocation suits investors who need meaningful growth but want shallower drawdowns — typically those closer to using the money, or those who find themselves tempted to sell during large market falls. It’s a classic middle ground, not a universal answer.
Should I change my allocation after a big crash or rally?
Reacting to recent events tends to hurt results. A better approach is to set a long-term target allocation you can live with and use simple rebalancing rules to bring the portfolio back toward it, rather than reinventing the plan every quarter. The investors who do best are usually those who change their plan the least.
Can I build a 60/40 mix with UCITS ETFs available in Europe?
Yes. European investors can use a broad UCITS equity ETF (for example IWDA or VWRL) alongside a global aggregate bond UCITS ETF (for example AGGH or VAGP). Many brokers also offer UCITS-compliant balanced funds that maintain the split internally. You do not need US ETFs like SPY or AGG to implement this strategy.
Does the 60/40 portfolio still make sense today?
The 60/40 went through a difficult 2022 when stocks and bonds fell together — an unusual outcome caused by rapid interest rate rises. But the core logic still holds over longer periods: bonds reduce volatility even if they add a layer of interest-rate risk. The real question is which allocation level fits your timeline and your actual tolerance for drawdowns, not which mix performed best in any given year.
QuantRoutine provides educational content only. Nothing on this page is an offer, solicitation, or recommendation to buy or sell any security or to open an account with any specific broker. Investments can lose value, and past performance does not guarantee future results. You are responsible for your own investment, tax, and legal decisions.
Portfolio paths are stylized models based on Jan 2021 – Dec 2024. Numbers are rounded for clarity. Real outcomes depend on the exact instruments, costs, and periods used. Last updated: March 2026.