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 XOVR: how they differ

ACWI and XOVR hold 11% of their weight in the same names, and ACWI returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and XOVR hold 11% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and XOVR both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIXOVR
NVIDIA CORPORATION4.89%9.48%
ALPHABET INC.2.26%6.53%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.34%4.47%
TESLA, INC.1.09%1.63%
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC.0.32%0.56%
ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.0.19%2.31%
APPLOVIN CORPORATION0.10%3.95%
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.0.08%1.77%
DOORDASH, INC.0.07%2.04%
ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.0.06%3.56%
ROCKET LAB CORPORATION0.04%2.50%
RESMED INC.0.03%1.36%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in XOVR
APPLE INC. 4.02%Roku Inc 2.16%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 2.90%Tempus Ai Inc 2.06%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.58%Exelixis Inc 1.89%
BROADCOM INC. 1.90%Virtu Financial Inc 1.86%
ALPHABET INC. 1.87%Medpace Holdings Inc 1.67%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 1.73%Pegasystems Inc 1.56%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 0.86%Globus Medical Inc 1.35%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 0.76%Ubiquiti Inc 0.92%

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 XOVR on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
XOVR
ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesERShares
What it isMSCI ACWIPrivate-Public Crossover
Total return, 1 year+19.1%0.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts−17.5 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.75%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%43.4%
Holdings230732

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%.

XOVR in plain words

XOVR is an index equity fund tracking the Private-Public Crossover. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned 0.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.75% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 43% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 32 positions, with the top ten at 63.1%. It sat 4.2% below its high of Oct 27, 2025 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or XOVR?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and XOVR returned 0.0%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or XOVR?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and XOVR charges 0.75%, so ACWI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and XOVR overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 43% of XOVR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 11% 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 XOVR, 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 XOVR, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWI-XOVR Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources