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 IWD: how they differ

ACWI and IWD hold 39% of their weight in the same names, and IWD returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and IWD hold 39% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and IWD both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIIWD
APPLE INC.4.02%5.38%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION2.90%3.89%
AMAZON.COM, INC.2.58%5.95%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.0.86%2.46%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.0.66%2.62%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION0.66%1.60%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.34%0.63%
WALMART INC.0.58%1.28%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON0.56%1.72%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION0.45%0.66%
INTEL CORPORATION0.43%1.72%
ABBVIE INC.0.38%1.15%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in IWD
NVIDIA CORPORATION 4.89%HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATION 0.20%
ALPHABET INC. 2.26%HONEYWELL AEROSPACE INC. 0.20%
BROADCOM INC. 1.90%Carnival Corporation Ltd. 0.10%
ALPHABET INC. 1.87%MKS, INCORPORATED. 0.08%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%MODERNA, INC. 0.07%
TESLA, INC. 1.09%US FOODS HOLDING CORP. 0.06%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 0.76%SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. 0.06%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 0.59%TD SYNNEX CORPORATION 0.06%

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 IWD on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
IWD
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isMSCI ACWIRussell 1000 value
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+27.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts+9.9 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%90.2%
Holdings2307870

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%.

IWD in plain words

IWD is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +27.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 90% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 870 positions, with the top ten at 27.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or IWD?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and IWD returned +27.4%, so IWD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or IWD?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and IWD charges 0.18%, so IWD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and IWD overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 90% of IWD by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 39% 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 IWD, 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 IWD, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-IWD Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources