ACWI vs ACWX: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) and iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF (ACWX) — both Global Multi-Region funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 25, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
ACWI and ACWX compete directly — both are Global Multi-Region funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — ACWI scores higher: 71.7 (Grade B) versus 71.2 for ACWX. That doesn't make ACWX a bad fund; it means ACWI currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| ACWI | ACWX | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Global Multi-Region | Global Multi-Region |
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.32% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $33.2B | $11.6B |
| Dividend yield | 1.43% | 2.50% |
| 1-year return | +18.78% | +21.56% |
| 3-year return | +63.12% | +57.54% |
| Volatility | 13.81% | 17.09% |
| Max drawdown | -16.55% | -13.84% |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.00 | 0.97 |
| ETFValuer score | 71.7 | 71.2 |
| Grade | B | B |
| Overall rank | #90 | #95 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
On cost, the two are essentially tied — ACWI charges 0.32% a year versus ACWX's 0.32%. A difference this small (about $0.00 a year on a $10,000 position) isn't a reason to choose one fund over the other.
What ACWI's Fees Cost You
ACWI charges an expense ratio of 0.32% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Over the trailing 3 years, ACWI returned +63.12% versus +57.54% for ACWX — a gap of about 5.6 percentage points. On risk, ACWX has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-13.84% vs. -16.55%). ACWI currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 1.00 vs. 0.97), meaning it delivered more return per unit of volatility taken on.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 3.0 years of daily returns (752 shared trading days), ACWI and ACWX show a high correlation of 0.906 — closely related, but not identical. Holding both would add very little diversification: when one falls, the other almost always falls with it. Treat these as alternatives to each other, not as complements in the same portfolio.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.906 | High — closely related, but not identical |
| R-squared | 82.0% | 82.0% of ACWI's daily moves are explained by ACWX's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 6.60% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | ACWI +18.07% · ACWX +16.83% | ACWI ahead by 1.24 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, ACWI finished as much as +13.9 points ahead of ACWX at the best extreme and -15.8 points at the worst — a 29.7-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Holdings Overlap
ACWI and ACWX hold 1 of the same companies among their top 10 positions. Those shared names make up 1.7% of ACWI and 4.7% of ACWX. That's modest duplication — the funds are mostly distinct at the top, so holding both can still add diversification.
| Shared Holding | ACWI Weight | ACWX Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited | 1.73% | 4.67% |
Compares the top 10 reported holdings from each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing, so it understates total overlap — funds tracking similar indexes overlap far more deeply than the top 10 alone can show. Search any company across all tracked funds with the Stock Overlap tool.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean ACWI if…
- It has been the calmer ride (13.8% volatility vs 17.1%)
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 63.1% over 3 years against 57.5%
Lean ACWX if…
- Current income matters to you — it yields 2.50% against 1.43%
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is ACWI or ACWX better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — ACWI scores higher: 71.7 (Grade B) versus 71.2 for ACWX. That doesn't make ACWX a bad fund; it means ACWI currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, ACWI or ACWX?
ACWX currently has the lower expense ratio (0.32% vs. 0.32%).
Can I hold both ACWI and ACWX?
You can, though the benefit is limited. At a correlation of 0.91, ACWI and ACWX fall together far more often than not, so owning both adds complexity and a second expense ratio without much real diversification. Most investors are better served picking one.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.