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 IEFA: how they differ

ACWI and IEFA hold 22% of their weight in the same names, and ACWI returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and IEFA hold 22% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and IEFA both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIIEFA
ASML Holding N.V.0.56%2.23%
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC0.32%1.25%
ASTRAZENECA PLC0.29%1.17%
Novartis AG0.28%1.11%
SHELL PLC0.27%1.03%
Nestle S.A.0.26%1.03%
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft0.23%0.90%
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA0.21%0.84%
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.0.21%0.80%
BHP GROUP LIMITED0.20%0.80%
TOTALENERGIES SE0.19%0.73%
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION0.18%0.72%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in IEFA
NVIDIA CORPORATION 4.89%Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. 0.07%
APPLE INC. 4.02%Resonac Holdings Corporation 0.06%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 2.90%Mitsui Kinzoku Company, Limited 0.06%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.58%PLS GROUP LIMITED 0.06%
ALPHABET INC. 2.26%DIPLOMA PLC 0.05%
BROADCOM INC. 1.90%ENLIGHT RENEWABLE ENERGY LTD 0.05%
ALPHABET INC. 1.87%BEAZLEY PLC 0.04%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%Accelleron Industries AG 0.04%

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 IEFA on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
IEFA
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isMSCI ACWICore MSCI EAFE
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+18.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts+0.5 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%0.1%
Holdings23072632

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%.

IEFA in plain words

IEFA is an index equity fund tracking the Core MSCI EAFE. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2632 positions, with the top ten at 11.5%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or IEFA?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and IEFA returned +18.0%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or IEFA?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and IEFA charges 0.07%, so IEFA is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and IEFA overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 0% of IEFA by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 22% 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 IEFA, 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 IEFA, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-IEFA Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources