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 IGM: how they differ

ACWI and IGM hold 28% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and IGM hold 28% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and IGM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIIGM
NVIDIA CORPORATION4.89%7.97%
APPLE INC.4.02%7.92%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION2.90%7.50%
ALPHABET INC.2.26%4.45%
BROADCOM INC.1.90%7.61%
ALPHABET INC.1.87%3.55%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.34%4.17%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.0.59%5.47%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.0.58%4.13%
INTEL CORPORATION0.43%2.88%
NETFLIX, INC.0.40%1.31%
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.0.36%2.02%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in IGM
AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.58%Sandisk Corp. 1.47%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%Seagate Technology Holdings plc 0.94%
TESLA, INC. 1.09%Accenture plc 0.33%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 0.86%NXP Semiconductors NV 0.31%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 0.76%Flex Ltd. 0.26%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 0.66%TE Connectivity plc 0.26%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 0.66%Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd. 0.19%
WALMART INC. 0.58%MKS, Inc. 0.13%

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 IGM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isMSCI ACWIExpanded Tech Sector
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+32.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts+15.2 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.37%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%92.0%
Holdings2307295

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%.

IGM in plain words

IGM is an index equity fund tracking the Expanded Tech Sector. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +32.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.37% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 295 positions, with the top ten at 55.7%. It sat 5.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or IGM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and IGM returned +32.7%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or IGM?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and IGM charges 0.37%, so ACWI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and IGM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 92% of IGM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 28% 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 IGM, 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 IGM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-IGM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources