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 SCHG: how they differ

ACWI and SCHG hold 34% of their weight in the same names, and ACWI returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and SCHG hold 34% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and SCHG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWISCHG
NVIDIA CORPORATION4.89%11.02%
APPLE INC.4.02%9.84%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION2.90%7.18%
AMAZON.COM, INC.2.58%5.68%
ALPHABET INC.2.26%4.76%
BROADCOM INC.1.90%4.55%
ALPHABET INC.1.87%3.78%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.34%3.46%
TESLA, INC.1.09%3.92%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY0.76%3.06%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.0.58%2.94%
VISA INC.0.56%1.92%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in SCHG
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%Linde PLC 0.81%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 0.86%Trane Technologies PLC 0.35%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 0.66%TE Connectivity PLC 0.22%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 0.66%Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 0.13%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 0.59%Carnival Corp Ltd 0.13%
WALMART INC. 0.58%FTAI Aviation Ltd 0.09%
ASML Holding N.V. 0.56%Carpenter Technology Corp 0.08%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 0.56%MasTec Inc 0.08%

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 May 31, 2026.

ACWI and SCHG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesSchwab
What it isMSCI ACWIU.S. Large-Cap Growth
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+12.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts−4.8 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.04%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%95.4%
Holdings2307193

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%.

SCHG in plain words

SCHG is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Large-Cap Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 193 positions, with the top ten at 57.2%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or SCHG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and SCHG returned +12.7%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or SCHG?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and SCHG charges 0.04%, so SCHG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and SCHG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 95% of SCHG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 34% 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 SCHG, 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 SCHG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-SCHG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources