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 VONG: how they differ

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

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund.

What they hold in common

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

Positions ACWI and VONG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIVONG
NVIDIA CORPORATION4.89%13.09%
APPLE INC.4.02%11.97%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION2.90%8.98%
AMAZON.COM, INC.2.58%5.07%
ALPHABET INC.2.26%3.91%
BROADCOM INC.1.90%5.78%
ALPHABET INC.1.87%3.15%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.34%3.20%
TESLA, INC.1.09%3.48%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY0.76%2.67%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.0.58%1.47%
VISA INC.0.56%1.57%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in VONG
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%Coupang Inc 0.07%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 0.86%Lattice Semiconductor Corp 0.05%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 0.66%Viking Holdings Ltd 0.05%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 0.66%Tempur Sealy International Inc 0.04%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 0.59%Lamar Advertising Co 0.04%
ASML Holding N.V. 0.56%Guidewire Software Inc 0.04%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 0.56%Dynatrace Inc 0.04%
SK hynix Inc. 0.49%Penumbra Inc 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 May 31, 2026.

ACWI and VONG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
VONG
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesVanguard
What it isMSCI ACWIRussell 1000 Growth
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+7.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts−10.3 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%95.6%
Holdings2307387

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%.

VONG in plain words

VONG is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 96% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 387 positions, with the top ten at 61.3%. It sat 4.9% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or VONG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and VONG returned +7.2%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or VONG?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and VONG charges 0.07%, so VONG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and VONG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 96% of VONG 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 VONG, 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 VONG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-VONG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources