Top ETFs, Tactical vs. Static Portfolio Leaders, and Multi-Horizon Investment Analysis (October 2025)

Topics this month

• Top-Performing Tactical and Static Portfolios Over 20 Years
• Using Risk-Return Scatter Plots to Evaluate Portfolio Performance
• Investment Insights: iShares ETF Risk vs. Return Over Time
• Why Multiple Time Horizons Matter in Investment Analysis

Welcome to the RecipeInvesting.com commentary for October 2025. There are several noteworthy updates to share this month. Under the Resources section, a new article has been published titled "Beyond 60/40: How Adaptive Asset Allocation Outperforms Traditional Portfolios".

While this article originally appeared on SeekingAlpha, the full text is now available on the site without any paywall or registration requirements. For investors interested in one of the platform's most popular tactical portfolio families—referred to as tactical portfolio recipes—this article provides comprehensive insight into the adaptive asset allocation methodology. The platform currently tracks six different variations of this particular portfolio, ranging from t.aaaa through t.aaaf.

Top-Performing Tactical and Static Portfolios Over 20 Years

Tactical Portfolio Performance

When examining the top-ranked recipes over the past 20 years, the results are displayed in order of performance. Some entries may contain blank data fields, which typically occur for two main reasons: either the fund has not been trading for the full 20-year period, or the underlying components that make up the portfolio recipe were not yet available two decades ago.

Among the 20-year results, tactical portfolios dominate the top performance rankings. Notably, Adaptive Allocation D (t.aaad) and Adaptive Allocation F (t.aaaf) appear among the strongest performers—the same methodologies detailed in the recently published article on adaptive asset allocation.

Beyond tactical approaches, the results also reveal interesting insights into top-performing static portfolio varieties, offering investors a comprehensive view of different strategic approaches.

Static Portfolio Performance

Examining the top-ranked portfolios over the last 20 years reveals several noteworthy static strategies with strong historical performance.

The Talmud Equities and Gold portfolio (s.talg) has demonstrated solid performance, benefiting particularly from gold's recent strong showing. Over the past 20 years, this portfolio—one of several Talmud portfolio variations tracked on the platform—has achieved:

• 10.2% annualized return over 20 years
• Maximum drawdown of 38.5% during that period

The Permanent Plus portfolio (s.plus) represents a modified version of the classic permanent portfolio strategy. This variation removes the least risky asset—the cash-like component—to enhance returns without measurably affecting the overall risk profile. The performance metrics include:

• 9.7% annualized return over 20 years
• Maximum drawdown of 24% over both the 15- and 20-year periods

The fact that the drawdown figure remains consistent across both timeframes indicates that the maximum decline occurred within the past 15 years.

While both portfolios have delivered strong long-term returns, their risk characteristics differ significantly. The Talmud Equities and Gold portfolio generated higher absolute returns but experienced a substantially larger drawdown (38.5%) compared to Permanent Plus (24%), offering investors different risk-return trade-offs within static portfolio strategies.

Using Risk-Return Scatter Plots to Evaluate Portfolio Performance

Investors can access detailed information on any individual portfolio recipe by selecting it from the main list. The Compare Risk versus Return feature provides scatter plot visualizations that offer an intuitive way to evaluate portfolio performance characteristics.

The 20-year returns scatter plot displays performance data with:

• Total annualized return on the vertical axis
• Maximum drawdown on the horizontal axis

For example, Permanent Plus (s.plus) appears as an orange dot on the chart. Portfolios with superior risk-adjusted performance relative to s.plus will appear above and to the left—representing higher returns with lower drawdowns. This northwest region of the chart represents the ideal position: higher returns combined with lower risk.

Several portfolio recipes occupy this favorable territory. The Adaptive Allocation F portfolio (t.aaaf)—a fan favorite consistently highlighted in platform analysis and featured in the recent article—stands out in this region. Another notable performer, t.pure, appears further to the right, representing a higher risk, higher return profile. While achieving higher returns with higher risk is generally more straightforward, the true challenge lies in reaching that elusive northwest corner where investors can capture higher returns while simultaneously reducing risk.

Alternative Risk Measures

Downside deviation often provides a more relevant measure of risk because investors typically welcome upward variation but aim to minimize downward movement. When examining the downside deviation chart, t.aaaf maintains a favorable profile, delivering higher returns with only slightly more risk than s.plus and positioning itself almost directly north of s.plus on the scatter plot. This placement reflects similar risk levels but meaningfully greater returns, making it an appealing risk-return trade-off. For additional context, the scatter plots feature three colored reference points: purple for the Bond fund (BND), teal for the Balanced 60/40 Allocation (s.6040), and blue for the S&P 500 (SPY) exchange-traded fund. Portfolio recipes that appear above the line connecting these benchmarks generally outperform simple market investments or basic stock-bond allocations. This performance gap underscores the core value proposition of RecipeInvesting.com—identifying systematic allocation strategies capable of exceeding the results of traditional market benchmarks.

Investment Insights: iShares ETF Risk vs. Return Over Time

The same analytical framework used for portfolio recipes extends to individual fund families through the Pro subscription package. This premium tier offers identical risk-versus-return analysis for specific exchange-traded fund and mutual fund families, providing investors with comprehensive evaluation tools across different investment vehicles.

The iShares family analysis demonstrates how this methodology applies to individual fund providers. The platform tracks every iShares ETF and applies the same scatter plot analysis using the three standard benchmarks: Bond fund, 60/40 Balanced, and S&P 500.

When examining the 20-year maximum drawdown chart for iShares ETFs, one particular fund stands out by positioning directly above SPY with nearly identical risk levels. This fund is IYW, the iShares U.S. Technology ETF. Technology has performed exceptionally well over the past two decades, and this positioning suggests the fund captured those gains without substantially increasing risk—at least over the 20-year timeframe.

Why Multiple Time Horizons Matter in Investment Analysis

Investment performance can look very different depending on the time horizon being examined. Over a 20-year period, IYW demonstrates superior returns at similar risk levels when compared to SPY. However, when the same data is viewed through shorter timeframes, a different story emerges. In these shorter periods, IYW falls into a more familiar pattern of higher returns paired with higher risk, challenging the notion that its long-term advantage is consistent across all windows of time.

This contrast underscores a crucial principle in investment analysis: exceptional performance during a single period should never be accepted at face value. Instead, it must be evaluated through three critical dimensions. First, returns should be assessed in relation to the level of risk taken to achieve them. A scatter plot of risk versus return makes this relationship immediately clear, revealing whether strong performance truly reflects efficiency or simply higher volatility. Second, performance must be considered within a broader competitive universe. Looking at one fund in isolation can be misleading because, over any given period, there will always be outliers with extraordinary results. The real question is whether such performance reflects genuine skill or merely greater risk-taking. And third, consistency across multiple timeframes is essential. A fund that appears to outperform over one or two years but fails to maintain that advantage over longer periods may not have a sustainable edge. Short-term anomalies are common, and relying on them can lead to misguided conclusions.

The narrower the data window, the easier it becomes to find seemingly spectacular returns. But without accounting for risk, competition, and consistency, such figures may offer more illusion than insight. A disciplined, multi-period approach to analysis provides a clearer, more reliable foundation for investment decisions—helping investors separate true performance strength from temporary market noise.

This analysis has provided a comprehensive view of 20-year returns across a wide range of tactical and strategic asset allocation portfolios. The iShares case study demonstrates the value of combining risk-versus-return analysis with time-level evaluation, offering investors a robust framework for assessing investment opportunities.