Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
ACWI vs RDVY: how they differ
ACWI and RDVY hold 16% of their weight in the same names, and RDVY returned more over the year.
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and RDVY hold 16% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | ACWI | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| ALPHABET INC. | 2.26% | 2.12% |
| NVIDIA CORPORATION | 4.89% | 1.91% |
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION | 2.90% | 1.45% |
| APPLE INC. | 4.02% | 1.44% |
| META PLATFORMS, INC. | 1.34% | 1.50% |
| JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. | 0.86% | 1.91% |
| MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. | 0.59% | 1.83% |
| VISA INC. | 0.56% | 1.82% |
| COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION | 0.45% | 1.73% |
| MASTERCARD INCORPORATED | 0.43% | 1.19% |
| BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION | 0.36% | 1.96% |
| LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION | 0.33% | 4.42% |
| Only in ACWI | Only in RDVY |
|---|---|
| AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.58% | CHUBB LTD (SWITZERLAND) 1.97% |
| BROADCOM INC. 1.90% | MUELLER INDUSTRIES INC 1.93% |
| ALPHABET INC. 1.87% | COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED INC 1.16% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73% | EAST WEST BANCORP INC 1.01% |
| TESLA, INC. 1.09% | RALPH LAUREN CORP 1.01% |
| ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 0.76% | ACCENTURE PLC 1.00% |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 0.66% | SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY 0.59% |
| EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 0.66% | EVEREST GROUP LTD 0.54% |
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 iShares MSCI ACWI ETF | RDVY First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | First Trust |
| What it is | MSCI ACWI | First Rising Dividend Achievers |
| Total return, 1 year | +19.1% | +22.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.6 pts | +4.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.47% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 61.4% | 94.4% |
| Holdings | 2307 | 71 |
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%.
RDVY in plain words
RDVY is an index equity fund tracking the First Rising Dividend Achievers. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.47% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 71 positions, with the top ten at 28.6%. It sat 3.9% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or RDVY?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and RDVY returned +22.0%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, ACWI or RDVY?
- ACWI charges 0.32% a year and RDVY charges 0.47%, so ACWI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do ACWI and RDVY overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 94% of RDVY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 16% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, ACWI against RDVY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-RDVY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources