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 XLB: how they differ

ACWI and XLB hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and ACWI returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and State Street(R) Materials Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and XLB hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and XLB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIXLB
NEWMONT CORPORATION0.12%5.85%
FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC.0.08%5.31%
THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY0.08%4.95%
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.0.07%4.63%
ECOLAB INC.0.07%4.73%
CORTEVA, INC.0.06%4.97%
NUCOR CORPORATION0.05%3.88%
VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY0.04%4.72%
MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC.0.04%4.55%
STEEL DYNAMICS, INC.0.03%3.73%
DOW INC.0.03%2.64%
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.0.03%3.62%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in XLB
NVIDIA CORPORATION 4.89%Linde PLC 14.08%
APPLE INC. 4.02%CRH PLC 4.67%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 2.90%Smurfit Westrock PLC 3.25%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.58%Amcor PLC 2.69%
ALPHABET INC. 2.26%DuPont de Nemours Inc 2.48%
BROADCOM INC. 1.90%Albemarle Corp 2.13%
ALPHABET INC. 1.87%LyondellBasell Industries NV 1.82%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%Mosaic Co/The 0.90%

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 XLB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
XLB
State Street(R) Materials Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesState Street
What it isMSCI ACWIMaterials
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+12.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts−5.5 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%100.0%
Holdings230726

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%.

XLB in plain words

XLB is an index equity fund tracking the Materials. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 26 positions, with the top ten at 58.5%. It sat 5.1% below its high of Aug 26, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or XLB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and XLB returned +12.0%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or XLB?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and XLB charges 0.08%, so XLB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and XLB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 100% of XLB by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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 XLB, 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 XLB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-XLB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources