Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

ACWI vs FDVV: how they differ

ACWI and FDVV hold 27% of their weight in the same names, and ACWI returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and Fidelity High Dividend ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and FDVV hold 27% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and FDVV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIFDVV
NVIDIA CORPORATION4.89%6.86%
APPLE INC.4.02%5.70%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION2.90%4.50%
ALPHABET INC.2.26%2.21%
BROADCOM INC.1.90%3.50%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.0.86%2.58%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.34%0.74%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY0.76%0.56%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON0.56%0.49%
CATERPILLAR INC.0.42%0.46%
ABBVIE INC.0.38%0.40%
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION0.36%1.78%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in FDVV
AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.58%VAIL RESORTS INC 1.27%
ALPHABET INC. 1.87%BANCA MONTE DEI PASCHI DI SIENA SPA 1.26%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%OLD REPUBLIC INTL CORP 1.25%
TESLA, INC. 1.09%BANCO BPM SPA 1.18%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 0.66%STELLANTIS NV 0.96%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 0.66%SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS INC 0.96%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 0.59%AES CORP 0.92%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 0.58%OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS INC 0.88%

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.

ACWI and FDVV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
FDVV
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesFidelity
What it isMSCI ACWIHigh Dividend
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+17.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts−0.3 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%86.7%
Holdings230796

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%.

FDVV in plain words

FDVV is an index equity fund tracking the High Dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 96 positions, with the top ten at 32.5%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or FDVV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and FDVV returned +17.2%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or FDVV?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and FDVV charges 0.15%, so FDVV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and FDVV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 87% of FDVV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 27% 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.

ACWI against FDVV, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, ACWI against FDVV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-FDVV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources