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 VEA: how they differ

ACWX and VEA hold 15% of their weight in the same names, and VEA returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF and Vanguard Developed Markets Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWX and VEA hold 15% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWX and VEA both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWXVEA
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA0.69%0.90%
THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK0.50%0.63%
Allianz SE0.47%0.56%
Siemens Energy AG0.45%0.45%
UBS Group AG0.39%0.48%
Enbridge Inc.0.33%0.37%
BANK OF MONTREAL0.29%0.39%
Deutsche Telekom AG0.32%0.29%
GSK PLC0.29%0.33%
CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE0.28%0.33%
Zurich Insurance Group AG0.28%0.34%
THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA0.27%0.33%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWXOnly in VEA
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 4.69%ASML Holding NV 2.37%
ASML Holding N.V. 1.54%Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 1.56%
SK hynix Inc. 1.33%SK hynix Inc 1.40%
Tencent Holdings Limited 1.07%HSBC Holdings PLC 1.01%
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 0.86%Novartis AG 0.91%
ASTRAZENECA PLC 0.81%AstraZeneca PLC 0.87%
Alibaba Group Holding Limited 0.79%Nestle SA 0.82%
Novartis AG 0.77%Siemens AG 0.73%

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.

ACWX and VEA on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWX
iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF
VEA
Vanguard Developed Markets Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesVanguard
What it isMSCI ACWI ex U.S.Developed markets ex US
Total return, 1 year+23.0%+24.5%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.5 pts+7.0 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.03%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%0.0%
Holdings17593870

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%.

VEA in plain words

VEA is an index equity fund tracking the Developed markets ex US. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +24.5% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 3870 positions, with the top ten at 13.2%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWX or VEA?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWX returned +23.0% and VEA returned +24.5%, so VEA returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWX or VEA?
ACWX charges 0.32% a year and VEA charges 0.03%, so VEA is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWX and VEA overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of ACWX and 0% of VEA by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 15% 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 VEA, 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 VEA, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ACWX-VEA Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources