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

ACWX vs ONEQ: how they differ

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

iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF.

What they hold in common

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

Positions ACWX and ONEQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWXONEQ
SHOPIFY INC.0.41%0.32%
PDD Holdings Inc.0.19%0.12%
ELBIT SYSTEMS LTD0.07%0.09%
TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR LTD0.07%0.06%
NOVA LTD0.04%0.04%
Futu Holdings Limited0.03%0.02%
The Descartes Systems Group Inc.0.02%0.02%
FIRSTSERVICE CORPORATION0.02%0.02%
H World Group Limited0.03%0.01%
Open Text Corporation0.02%0.01%
Kanzhun Ltd0.01%0.01%
Legend Biotech Corp0.01%0.01%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWXOnly in ONEQ
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 4.69%NVIDIA CORP 11.24%
ASML Holding N.V. 1.54%APPLE INC 10.04%
SK hynix Inc. 1.33%MICROSOFT CORP 7.32%
Tencent Holdings Limited 1.07%AMAZON.COM INC 6.37%
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 0.86%ALPHABET INC 4.85%
ASTRAZENECA PLC 0.81%BROADCOM INC 4.64%
Alibaba Group Holding Limited 0.79%ALPHABET INC 4.48%
Novartis AG 0.77%TESLA INC 3.58%

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.

ACWX and ONEQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWX
iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesFidelity
What it isMSCI ACWI ex U.S.Nasdaq Composite
Total return, 1 year+23.0%+20.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.5 pts+3.1 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.21%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%87.4%
Holdings17591022

ACWX in plain words

ACWX is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI ACWI ex U.S.. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +23.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.32% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1759 positions, with the top ten at 14.6%.

ONEQ in plain words

ONEQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.21% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1022 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWX or ONEQ?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWX returned +23.0% and ONEQ returned +20.6%, so ACWX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWX or ONEQ?
ACWX charges 0.32% a year and ONEQ charges 0.21%, so ONEQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWX and ONEQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of ACWX and 87% of ONEQ 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.

ACWX against ONEQ, 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, ACWX against ONEQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWX-ONEQ Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources