Top 20 ETFs for a Diversified Portfolio in 2026

Twenty funds covering the exposures most passive portfolios are built from, in three sleeves. Expense ratios, what each fund is there to do, and how every one of them performed last calendar year.

What this list is

Twenty funds, grouped into three sleeves, covering the exposures most passive and systematic portfolios are built from. It is a starting universe rather than an allocation: the weights are the reader's decision and depend on horizon and risk capacity, neither of which a list can know.

Every figure below is computed from closing prices and from the expense ratios in the Quantlake instrument master. Nothing is retyped, so the page can be reissued each year without the numbers drifting from the funds they describe.

Why ETFs at all

Three properties, and the third is the one that matters most for a systematic investor.

Cost. Fees are charged as a percentage of assets every year, and the figures on this page are a fraction of what an actively managed fund charges. Breadth. A single purchase buys hundreds or thousands of holdings, so no individual company can decide the outcome. Transparency. The holdings and the rule that selects them are published, which is what makes a portfolio auditable and therefore repeatable.

The last point is the difference between a system and a series of decisions. A fund that publishes its rule can be held to it; a judgement cannot.

Why three sleeves

The sleeves exist because the three groups fail at different times, which is the only reason to hold more than one of them. Equities carry the growth and the drawdowns. Bonds are ballast, held to dampen the swings rather than to outrun them. Alternatives are held because they do not track the equity market, which is a different thing from being held because they return more.

A list that is all equity is not diversified however many tickers it contains. Nine of the funds below are equity and they move together most of the time; the diversification comes from the other eleven.

What an expense ratio actually costs

The expense ratio is the annual fee, deducted from the fund's own return before an investor sees it. It is the one number on this page that is known in advance, which is why it deserves attention out of proportion to its size.

The spread across the list is wide in relative terms and small in absolute ones. That matters most in the sleeves where funds are close substitutes: two broad US equity funds tracking near-identical indices differ mainly by fee, while a commodities fund and a bond fund are not competing on price at all.

How these funds are used in practice

A list is not a portfolio. Weights, a rebalancing rule and the discipline to follow it are what turn one into the other, and those are the parts that decide the outcome.

Quantlake runs two families of ETF portfolios built from exposures like these. Classic models follow long-horizon principles and rebalance on a quarterly calendar, and are on the free plan. Smart models are rules-based and adapt to changing market regimes, reviewing monthly and trading on threshold triggers rather than on the date, and sit on the Pro plan. Both draw on the three sleeves above. The current lineup and its track record is published in full.

The choice between them is a choice about rebalancing frequency, and the evidence on that is thinner than it is usually presented as being. Our work on portfolio drift measures what each rule actually did: the difference between quarterly and annual is small, and the difference between rebalancing and not is not.

Before buying any of them

Five checks, in the order they matter.

The expense ratio, because it is the only cost known in advance. Liquidity, since a wide bid-ask spread is a cost that does not appear in the fee. Tax treatment, which differs by domicile and by wrapper and can exceed the fee. Overlap, because two funds holding the same companies add tickers without adding diversification. A rebalancing rule decided in advance, since the alternative is deciding during a drawdown.

Reading last year's returns

The table shows each fund's total return over the last complete calendar year, its return so far this year, and its three-year annualised return where the fund is old enough to have one. Funds that did not trade for a full calendar year show n/a rather than a part-year figure dressed as an annual one.

A single year is a single draw. The ranking within it says more about which exposures were rewarded in that particular twelve months than about which funds are better, and the three-year column is there to make that visible.

The list

20 funds as of September 4, 2026. Expense ratios come from the Quantlake instrument master; returns are total return, close to close. The average expense ratio across the list is 0.16%, from AGG at the low end to PDBC at the high. This page is reissued each year.

In 2025 the list ran from GLD at +63.7% to IBIT at −6.4%, a spread of 70 points inside one selection. The equity funds cluster; the widest gaps are between sleeves rather than inside them, which is the case for holding all three.

Equity

Long-term growth. This is where the return comes from and where the volatility comes from.

Fixed income

Ballast. Bonds are held to dampen the equity swings, not to outrun them.

Alternatives

Diversifiers that do not track the equity market, and are held for that rather than for their own returns.

Prices and expense ratios as of September 4, 2026. Returns are total return, close to close; 2025 is the full calendar year and 2026 is year to date. Funds without a complete calendar year or a three-year history show n/a rather than a shorter figure. This is a starting universe, not an allocation, and nothing here is advice.

Frequently asked questions

Related

• Quantlake model portfolios: Classic and Smart
• Which ETFs earned the most per unit of risk
• Portfolio drift: how far a 60/40 moves on its own
• Compare ETFs with the Sharpe ratio
• Compound interest calculator with volatility, inflation and fees