Getting richer, or just topping up?

The faint area is money you paid in. The lime area on top of it is what the market added — or, when a portfolio is under its cost, what it took away, drawn below the line rather than flattened to nothing.

“Contributions” here is the same invested figure the rest of the product uses — the cumulative cash flow through your accounts — not a second definition invented for this chart. One definition means the two screens cannot tell you different things about the same money.

Contribution arithmetic only. Nothing here projects a return or assumes market growth.

A total tells you the size of the answer and never its source. This ranks every position by how much of the figure it is responsible for — all-time, or over a window you choose — so a portfolio carried by one position cannot look evenly healthy.

Each bar is that asset’s own contribution in pounds, not a share of a percentage, so gains and losses sit on the same scale and offset each other honestly.

Realised plus unrealised, with fees where your imports recorded them, resolving to the same Total P&L the rest of the product shows. Not a chart drawn beside the number — a decomposition of it, asserted by a test rather than described by a caption.

Where a cost is unknown, it is named as an estimate and its share is stated. Missing data reads “—”, never a convincing zero.

Every day the market was open, grouped into months you can open, with the deepest fall from a peak stated as a figure rather than left for you to spot on a line.

Only days priced against the market on both sides count as trading days. A day rebuilt from cost is not drawn as a flat day — it reads as no data, because that is what it is.