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 XLF: how they differ

ACWI and XLF hold 7% of their weight in the same names, and ACWI returned more over the year.

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

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and XLF hold 7% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and XLF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIXLF
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.0.86%11.57%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.0.66%12.10%
VISA INC.0.56%7.51%
MASTERCARD INCORPORATED0.43%5.47%
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION0.36%4.91%
THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.0.28%3.94%
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY0.26%3.34%
CITIGROUP INC.0.23%3.15%
MORGAN STANLEY0.23%3.31%
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY0.18%2.38%
BLACKROCK, INC.0.16%1.83%
THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION0.16%1.99%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in XLF
NVIDIA CORPORATION 4.89%Chubb Ltd 1.62%
APPLE INC. 4.02%Aon PLC 0.94%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 2.90%Arch Capital Group Ltd 0.45%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.58%Willis Towers Watson PLC 0.33%
ALPHABET INC. 2.26%Everest Group Ltd 0.19%
BROADCOM INC. 1.90%Globe Life Inc 0.18%
ALPHABET INC. 1.87%Assurant Inc 0.18%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%Invesco Ltd 0.15%

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 XLF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
XLF
State Street(R) Financial Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesState Street
What it isMSCI ACWIFinancials
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+7.6%
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%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%100.0%
Holdings230776

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%.

XLF in plain words

XLF is an index equity fund tracking the Financials. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.6% 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 76 positions, with the top ten at 57.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or XLF?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and XLF returned +7.6%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or XLF?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and XLF charges 0.08%, so XLF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and XLF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 100% of XLF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 7% 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 XLF, 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 XLF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-XLF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources