PORTFOLIO ANALYTICS SOFTWARE (Part I)
https://indoustribune.com/business/finance/portfolio-analytics-software-2025/If you have multiple investment accounts, it becomes difficult to monitor all those portfolios. There are several portfolio analytics software that handle uploaded, stored or linked portfolios, but don't have any transactional capabilities. The analytics may include total-returns (TRs), rolling-returns, inflation-adjustments, portfolio value charts, drawdowns, U/D CR, benchmarking, SWRs/PWRs, MPT statistics (alpha, beta, correlation, standard deviation, Sharpe Ratio, etc), etc.
MFO Premium (MFOP)
It has great analytics at low-cost that is partially tax deductible. Partial site updates are daily, weekly, biweekly or monthly. It can handle mutual funds/OEFs, ETFs, CEFs & insurance VAs (internal tickers, selected Q-tickers), but not stocks. There is charting for portfolio components but not for portfolio values. Monthly return data are used for analytics. There are regular enhancements. MFOP runs are not linkable. MFO = Mutual Fund Observer; it's a 501c3 organization.
Portfolio Visualizer (PV)
Its free version is now limited to 10-year lookback from the date of the PV run, so that practically means 9 recent full years; the subscription version has medium-high costs. The PV runs can be longer with older start & end dates. It can handle mutual funds/OEFs, ETFs, CEFs & stocks. Portfolio can be manually entered or uploaded from Excel or csv files. An interesting feature is to include cash additions or withdrawals as percentages or that are uniform (with or without inflation-adjustments; default balances are nominal, but inflation-adjustment balances are also available). Monthly return data are used for analytics. PV runs are linkable.
TestFol
It's relatively new & rapidly evolving. It has a free version only & maybe a good substitute for PV as it doesn't have timeframe limitations. It can handle mutual funds/OEFs, ETFs, CEFs, stocks, & some VAs with Q-tickers. Login isn't offered, but it saves recent portfolios using browsers' local storage features. Cash additions/ withdrawals are also available. Unfortunately, the inflation-adjustment is applied to both the additions/ withdrawals (good) & final balances (not good), so the results won't match with the default balance values in PV. A unique feature is that it uses daily return data, so its MPT statistics won't match those from sites using monthly return data. Sometimes, the daily return data jumps around the ex-div dates & that may introduce small errors in MPT stats. Several rolling-stats are also available (TRs, SDs, Sharpe Ratios, etc). TestFol runs are linkable.
COMPREHENSIVE PORTFOLIO SOFTWARE (Part II)
https://indoustribune.com/business/finance/comprehensive-portfolio-software-morningstar-stock-rover/These have both transactional & analytics capabilities. There are 2 ways that a portfolio software can get transactional information for buys & sells, & distribution reinvestments. The first way is the manual entry capability that used to be more common. The second way that is more popular now is with link to the brokerage or fund family. Investors may be concerned about security risks of account linking; moreover, evaluating test portfolios isn't possible.
Morningstar Portfolio
This is a rapidly evolving new product at a low-cost; try multiyear subscription discount to lower costs. It started with very limited manual capabilities, but those are getting better. The portfolio analytics remain weak. The monthly return data are used for analytics. It will eventually replace the old Morningstar Legacy Portfolio (counted as +) that has great manual capabilities including auto-reinvestments (with just a click). Both versions are available for now & all changes made in Morningstar Legacy Portfolios are reflected in Morningstar Portfolio, but not always so for the reverse.
Stock Rover (SR)
It has a free version, but for portfolio analytics, SR-Premium with low-cost is needed. While feature rich, it isn't very user-friendly & has a steep learning-curve. The manual mode requires manual reinvestments of distributions & that may become a monthly time-consuming chore, but if not done regularly, the portfolio data will drift from true values. A unique feature is that it uses daily return data, so its MPT statistics won't be comparable to those from sites using monthly return data.
The list of portfolio software featured in Part I & II isn't comprehensive. It provides insights into 5+ portfolio software with which the author has direct familiarity - 3 for Analytics (see 7/18/25 issue) & 2+ Comprehensive. Some brokers also have good portfolio capabilities, for example, Fidelity Full View. Experienced DIY investors may develop their own portfolio software using Excel or Google Sheets. Excluded from consideration here were pure charting & family budgeting software.
Comments
Fidelity brokerage offers a basic tool with limited capabilities.
Or, what do they call it? I might already be using it. Do you mean their analysis tool?
https://fidelity.com/why-fidelity/insights-tools
https://robberger.com/category/tools/
Thanks for these ideas.
I still find Quicken to be the most useful PM. It easily and seemlessly aggregates my data from multiple accounts as often as I click "update".
While not as flexible in it's categories ( but most of the categories can be changed by the user and assigned to a security) it has very functional "export" features that allow easy exporting to M* or other sites.
Quicken also has a direct link to M* Xray with a few but not all of the Xray features.
Pretty good deal for $100 a year
My brother used to use I think Mint? for the same thing, giving it access to all his accounts.
Thousand dollar question: Why do we not see typos until after we post? Anyone?
I share your concern about login credentials. this is a potential issue with all "aggregators" most of which (Fidelity retrieving your Schwab accounts etc) in the past used Yodlee.
Schwab has enhanced it's security for Quicken and other aggregators, and when I have asked I have been told these allow data scrapping only and not transactions. So the hack would have to be of the aggregator to access your pw.
Given the option, I do not store my credentials with Quicken, but copy and past them in when I update.
A couple of times a year I have searched for instances of fraud caused by hacking into Quicken or Yodlee and have never found any reports.
This topic was explored in depth a couple of years ago here.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/60398/are-the-risks-of-financial-account-aggregation-really-worth-it/p2
this is a potential issue with all "aggregators" most of which (Fidelity retrieving your Schwab accounts etc)
in the past used Yodlee."
Using data aggregators allows multiple accounts to be viewed in a "single pane of glass"
but it also increases the attack surface available to nefarious actors.
When I last checked, Fidelity investors would have little recourse
if a data aggregator breach resulted in a financial loss.
Amazing what a 10.5% to 12.3% does over 30 years
With $10,000 initial investment.
S&P 500 $197,026.06 10.45%
VGHCX $326,539.82 12.32%
Minor variations in annualized returns can lead to significant differences
in terminal value when compounded over many years!
Vanguard Health Care had a 16.4% annualized return during Ed Owens'
long tenure (05/23/1984 - 12/31/2012) compared to the S&P 500 index's 10.7% return.
The fund's returns during Jean Hynes' tenure (ending Jan. 2025) paled in comparison.
I was surprised Ms. Hynes remained the sole manager of Vanguard Health Care
after being promoted to CEO in 2021.
You'd think she had plenty of other responsibilities associated with the CEO role!
FWIW, a M* analyst downgraded Vanguard Health Care in late 2020.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/why-weve-downgraded-this-fine-vanguard-fund
Note: Sorry, I probably shouldn't have derailed yogi's thread!
I’m sure Ed Owen had better skills, but the time period I’m sure was more conducive to health care in 84-2012 and easier competition in 80s? Will have to compare Vanguard fund 2012 to now with Fidelity, etc.
VGHCX vs FSPHX CHART June 2012 to date
@linter, can you be more specific? Both TestFol and PV account for reinvestments of distributions. But some differences may be due to data sources and methodology - TestFol uses DAILY returns while PV uses MONTHLY returns.
Data sources do matter. For example, I have noticed that if Yahoo Finance misses a distribution, it's rarely fixed/updated. BTW, I have written about this to both Yahoo Finance and the funds affected and they don't care. That's the problem with FREE stuff - it comes from some other data feed and the errors just propagate. Another problem with Yahoo Finance is rounding distributions to 2 decimal digits even when more digits are available. The rounding errors can also accumulate. So, I am cautious on relying on Yahoo Finance data.
As mentioned in my review, TestFol and Stock Rover use DAILY returns, but MFO, PV and Morningstar Portfolio use MONTHLY returns. This may lead to minor differences in results. No body uses WEEKLY returns that may be the best compromise for accuracy and computing resources.
in a feeble attempt to get AI to cobble some information together in a preferred form, i had a small bit of success from public (non password) sites where a link can generate a table (preferably text\csv updated at least once a day).
however, today's game of scraping websites for the most valuable content is not amenable to this novice approach.
I'm looking at Lazard Int'l Dynamic Equity ETF (IEQ), formerly Lazard Int'l Equity Advantage (IEAIX).
Morningstar splices the two sets of returns together. TF and PV do not. While TF offers the OEF (through mid May 2025), I can't seem to find more recent ETF data (under IEQ or any other ticker/name). While PV offers data for Lazard Int'l Dynamic Equity ETF both pre-conversion (IEAIX) and post-conversion (IEQ), it doesn't have a ticker that gives the combined, spliced performance. At least I can't find any.
TF also seems to have a boundary issue. It claims that IEAIX began on Jan 4, 2016. In reality the fund began in 2015. So TF reports the 2016 performance as +0.51%. That matches what the M* chart says for 1/4/16 through 12/31/16. But the true 2016 performance (as reported both by Morningstar and by Lazard) was -1.13%.
All the tools are nice as far as they go. Though professional strength they are not. However, the price is right
Portfolio Backtester (PB)
Changed end date to 07/31/2025 and changed starting value to $100K.
Note: Start date defaults to 01/04/2016 which is the first trading day in Jan. 2016.
https://testfol.io/?s=g3PSZTlurBw
Portfolio Visualizer (PV)
Changed time period to month-to-month and changed initial amount to $100K.
Results displayed are for Jan. 2016 - Jul. 2025.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=1Oyg2zGSsGTWsl9zJLPLcS
Max Drawdown (PB vs. PV)
MRFOX: -29.10% vs. -15.67%
PRWCX: -26.86% vs. -16.53%
PRCOX: -34.42% vs. -24.12%
VFIAX: -33.80% vs. -23.89%
Sharpe Ratio (PB vs. PV)
MRFOX: 0.95 vs. 1.04
PRWCX: 0.74 vs. 0.88
PRCOX: 0.74 vs. 0.84
VFIAX: 0.73 vs. 0.82
Sortino Ratio (PB vs. PV)
MRFOX: 1.35 vs. 1.88
PRWCX: 1.04 vs. 1.41
PRCOX: 1.04 vs. 1.31
VFIAX: 1.02 vs. 1.28
CAGR (PB vs. PV)
MRFOX: 16.03% vs. 15.81%
PRWCX: 11.41% vs. 11.40%
PRCOX: 15.19% vs. 14.93%
VFIAX: 14.69% vs. 14.48%
@yogibearbull,
Do you have any insights regarding the significant Max Drawdown variances
and the rather considerable Sharpe/Sortino variances?
When monthly returns are used (PV, MFO, M*), there is smoothing of data that won't capture full volatility within any month.
CAGR are close enough.
I subsequently used a website which lists weekly returns to check one of the funds.
The Max Drawdown difference was much less—4.19% vs. 13.43%.
Perhaps using weekly return data instead of daily/monthly data would be a good compromise?
Why does it do that? Testfolio says that the run is limited to 1/4/16 by the inception date of MRFOX. But the fund started on 12/28/2015, per Marshfield.
Remove MRFOX from the test set and Testfolio start date defaults to 11/13/2000. It correctly says that this is the inception date of VFIAX.
CAGRs and cumulative returns should be identical so long as same starting and ending dates are used. But they're not. Set Testfolio (and M* charts) to use dates from 1/31/16 through 7/31/25 and set PV to use Feb 2016 through July 2025. Cumulative returns from PV and M* are identical, but don't agree with Testfolio:
Cumulative Returns (M* & PV vs. Testfolio)
MRFOX: 326.81% vs 326.76%
PRWCX: 189.58% vs 186.74%
PRCOX: 303.21% vs 304.91%
VFIAX: 284.69% vs 284.69% - a match
Perhaps Testfolio is calculating reinvested dividends on its own, and slightly differently from the other tools. Worth noting is that its figures differ from the official figures, i.e. the ones reported by funds themselves.
For example, look at MRFOX for 2020, i.e. between 12/31/19 and 12/31/20. The fund prospectus, M* charts, M* fund performance table, and PV all report a 2020 return of 15.19%. Testfolio reports 15.18%. (To be precise, M* reports 15.1936% and PV reports 15.194% while Testfolio reports 15.17889%.)
CAGR are close enough.
For investing purposes, yes. It's the fact that they're not identical for identical dates that gives one pause.
Likewise, numerically it doesn't matter much whether one is looking at monthly variations or daily ones. Daily fluctuations are noise, just as tick-to-tick fluctuations in ETFs are noise at an even higher frequency. What matters more is comparing one fund's volatility with another's at the same sampling frequency.
IMHO max drawdowns are different. Recovery times when calculated monthly and daily can vary wildly. For example (not the best example, but it will suffice), consider IOFIX.
IOFIX peaked on March 6, 2020. By March 25 it had dropped 45.49%. On a daily basis, it has yet to recover. It came close on Feb 2, 2022, down just 0.22% from its peak, but that was as high as it got.
On a monthly basis (Feb 28, 2020 peak to March 31, 2020 trough), it dropped "only" 37.95% and recovered by Jan 31, 2022 (up 0.0755% from its previous peak).
Thanks for investigating!
"Why does it do that? Testfolio says that the run is limited to 1/4/16 by the inception date of MRFOX.
But the fund started on 12/28/2015, per Marshfield."
I don't know why Testfolio does this. I've experienced similar results with other funds.
"CAGRs and cumulative returns should be identical so long as same starting and ending dates are used.
But they're not."
Yes, this is somewhat concerning.