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 XLP: how they differ

ACWI and XLP hold 3% of their weight in the same names, and ACWI returned more over the year.

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

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and XLP hold 3% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and XLP both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIXLP
WALMART INC.0.58%10.84%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION0.45%9.06%
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY0.35%7.46%
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY0.33%6.87%
Philip Morris International Inc.0.26%6.16%
Pepsico, Inc.0.22%4.34%
Altria Group, Inc.0.12%4.55%
Mondelez International, Inc.0.08%4.17%
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY0.07%4.71%
TARGET CORPORATION0.06%3.87%
MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION0.06%4.47%
THE KROGER CO.0.04%2.05%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in XLP
NVIDIA CORPORATION 4.89%Bunge Global SA 0.94%
APPLE INC. 4.02%J M Smucker Co/The 0.78%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 2.90%Molson Coors Beverage Co 0.41%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.58%Brown-Forman Corp 0.29%
ALPHABET INC. 2.26%
BROADCOM INC. 1.90%
ALPHABET INC. 1.87%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%

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 XLP on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
XLP
State Street(R) Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesState Street
What it isMSCI ACWIConsumer staples
Total return, 1 year+19.1%+6.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts−11.2 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%100.0%
Holdings230734

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%.

XLP in plain words

XLP is an index equity fund tracking the Consumer staples. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +6.3% 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 34 positions, with the top ten at 62.6%. It sat 6.2% below its high of Feb 27, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or XLP?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and XLP returned +6.3%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or XLP?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and XLP charges 0.08%, so XLP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and XLP overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 100% of XLP by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 3% 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 XLP, 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 XLP, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-XLP Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources