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 IWB: how they differ

ACWI and IWB hold 63% of their weight in the same names, and ACWI returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and iShares Russell 1000 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and IWB hold 63% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and IWB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIIWB
NVIDIA CORPORATION4.89%6.73%
APPLE INC.4.02%6.03%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION2.90%4.00%
AMAZON.COM, INC.2.58%3.33%
ALPHABET INC.2.26%3.00%
BROADCOM INC.1.90%2.54%
ALPHABET INC.1.87%2.42%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.34%1.79%
TESLA, INC.1.09%1.77%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.0.86%1.26%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY0.76%1.38%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.0.66%1.34%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in IWB
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%SANDISK CORPORATION 0.48%
ASML Holding N.V. 0.56%SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 0.13%
SK hynix Inc. 0.49%HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATION 0.10%
Tencent Holdings Limited 0.39%HONEYWELL AEROSPACE INC. 0.10%
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 0.32%ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI PLC 0.06%
ASTRAZENECA PLC 0.29%Carnival Corporation Ltd. 0.05%
Alibaba Group Holding Limited 0.29%CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 0.04%
Novartis AG 0.28%MKS, INCORPORATED. 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 and Jun 30, 2026.

ACWI and IWB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isMSCI ACWIRussell 1000
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+16.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts−0.8 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%91.9%
Holdings23071024

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%.

IWB in plain words

IWB is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% 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 1024 positions, with the top ten at 33.5%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or IWB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and IWB returned +16.7%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or IWB?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and IWB charges 0.15%, so IWB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and IWB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 92% of IWB by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 63% 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 IWB, 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 IWB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-IWB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources