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 IBB: how they differ

ACWI and IBB hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and IBB returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and iShares Biotechnology ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and IBB hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and IBB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIIBB
AMGEN INC.0.19%7.84%
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.0.16%6.85%
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED0.11%8.09%
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.0.07%4.91%
ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.0.04%3.12%
INSMED INCORPORATED0.03%1.79%
BIOGEN INC.0.03%2.47%
NATERA, INC.0.03%2.89%
UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION0.02%1.74%
ILLUMINA, INC.0.02%2.07%
REVOLUTION MEDICINES, INC.0.02%2.78%
INCYTE CORPORATION0.02%1.75%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in IBB
NVIDIA CORPORATION 4.89%Argenx SE 3.76%
APPLE INC. 4.02%Moderna, Inc. 1.99%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 2.90%BeOne Medicines Ltd. 1.77%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.58%Roivant Sciences Ltd. 1.43%
ALPHABET INC. 2.26%Ascendis Pharma A/S 1.29%
BROADCOM INC. 1.90%Genmab A/S 1.12%
ALPHABET INC. 1.87%Exelixis, Inc. 1.03%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1.00%

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 Jun 30, 2026.

ACWI and IBB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
IBB
iShares Biotechnology ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isMSCI ACWIBiotechnology
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+41.5%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts+24.0 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.44%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%35.6%
Holdings2307248

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%.

IBB in plain words

IBB is an index equity fund tracking the Biotechnology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +41.5% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.44% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 36% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 248 positions, with the top ten at 44.8%. It sat 6.5% below its high of Aug 19, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or IBB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and IBB returned +41.5%, so IBB returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or IBB?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and IBB charges 0.44%, so ACWI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and IBB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 36% of IBB by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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 IBB, 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 IBB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-IBB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources