Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
ACWI vs EEM: how they differ
ACWI and EEM hold 12% of their weight in the same names, and EEM returned more over the year.
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and EEM hold 12% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | ACWI | EEM |
|---|---|---|
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa | 1.73% | 14.28% |
| SK hynix Inc. | 0.49% | 6.65% |
| Tencent Holdings Limited | 0.39% | 2.71% |
| Alibaba Group Holding Limited | 0.29% | 2.08% |
| DELTA ELECTRONICS, INC. | 0.14% | 1.17% |
| MediaTek Inc. | 0.13% | 1.62% |
| Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | 0.09% | 0.85% |
| HDFC BANK LIMITED | 0.09% | 0.70% |
| RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED | 0.09% | 0.66% |
| HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD. | 0.09% | 0.90% |
| ICICI BANK LIMITED | 0.07% | 0.55% |
| PDD Holdings Inc. | 0.07% | 0.47% |
| Only in ACWI | Only in EEM |
|---|---|
| NVIDIA CORPORATION 4.89% | Prologis Property Mexico, S.A de C.V. 0.04% |
| APPLE INC. 4.02% | Fibra Uno Administracion S.C. 0.04% |
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION 2.90% | KASIKORNBANK PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED 0.03% |
| AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.58% | KRUNG THAI BANK PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED 0.03% |
| ALPHABET INC. 2.26% | Grupo Aeroportuario del Centro Norte, S. 0.03% |
| BROADCOM INC. 1.90% | SCB X PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED 0.03% |
| ALPHABET INC. 1.87% | Bumrungrad Hospital Public Company Limit 0.03% |
| META PLATFORMS, INC. 1.34% | Plaza S.A. 0.03% |
Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.
| ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF | EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | MSCI ACWI | Emerging markets |
| Total return, 1 year | +19.1% | +32.3% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.6 pts | +14.8 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.72% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 61.4% | 0.0% |
| Holdings | 2307 | 1245 |
ACWI in plain words
ACWI is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI ACWI. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +19.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.32% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 61% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2307 positions, with the top ten at 24.6%.
EEM in plain words
EEM is an index equity fund tracking the Emerging markets. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +32.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.72% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1245 positions, with the top ten at 38.9%. It sat 4.7% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or EEM?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and EEM returned +32.3%, so EEM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, ACWI or EEM?
- ACWI charges 0.32% a year and EEM charges 0.72%, so ACWI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do ACWI and EEM overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 0% of EEM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 12% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, ACWI against EEM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-EEM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources