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 IJH: how they differ

ACWI and IJH hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and ACWI returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and IJH hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and IJH both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIIJH
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION0.03%0.77%
Everpure, Inc0.02%0.69%
UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION0.02%0.64%
ENTEGRIS, INC.0.02%0.76%
TWILIO INC.0.02%0.86%
BURLINGTON STORES, INC.0.02%0.55%
ILLUMINA, INC.0.02%0.73%
RB Global, Inc.0.02%0.60%
RELIANCE, INC.0.02%0.53%
COEUR MINING, INC.0.02%0.47%
CARLISLE COMPANIES INCORPORATED0.02%0.40%
W.P. CAREY INC.0.02%0.44%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in IJH
NVIDIA CORPORATION 4.89%CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORP 0.85%
APPLE INC. 4.02%MKS INC 0.83%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 2.90%NVENT ELECTRIC PLC 0.76%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.58%ATI INC 0.74%
ALPHABET INC. 2.26%TECHNIPFMC PLC 0.73%
BROADCOM INC. 1.90%STERLING INFRASTRUCTURE INC 0.71%
ALPHABET INC. 1.87%MASTEC INC 0.71%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%WOODWARD INC 0.70%

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 IJH on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
IJH
iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isMSCI ACWIS&P MidCap 400
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+13.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts−4.1 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.05%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%0.0%
Holdings2307400

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%.

IJH in plain words

IJH is an index equity fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +13.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.05% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 400 positions, with the top ten at 7.7%. It sat 5.4% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or IJH?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and IJH returned +13.4%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or IJH?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and IJH charges 0.05%, so IJH is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and IJH overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 0% of IJH by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 0% 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 IJH, 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 IJH, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-IJH Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources