Data as of Sep 21, 2026.
ACWI vs FBTC: how they differ
ACWI is an equity index fund and FBTC a spot crypto ETP, and over the year ACWI returned more, +17.6% against −31.0%.
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund.
| ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF | FBTC Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core fund | Core fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Fidelity |
| What it is | Tracks the MSCI ACWI | Holds bitcoin |
| Total return, 1 year | +17.6% | −31.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +16.6% | +16.6% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.0 pts | −47.6 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.25% |
| Holdings | 2238 | not filed |
| Net assets | $33.0bn | $13.9bn |
ACWI in plain words
ACWI tracks the MSCI ACWI. Over the year to Sep 18, 2026 it returned +17.6% with distributions reinvested, against +16.6% for the S&P 500 and +21.8% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.32% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Sep 18, 2026, 61% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2238 positions, with the top ten at 25.2%.
FBTC in plain words
FBTC holds bitcoin. Over the year to Sep 18, 2026 it returned −31.0% with distributions reinvested, against +16.6% for the S&P 500 and +21.8% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.25% a year. It sat 35.4% below its high of Oct 6, 2025 on Sep 18, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or FBTC?
- In the year to Sep 21, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +17.6% and FBTC returned −31.0%, so ACWI returned more.
- Which is cheaper, ACWI or FBTC?
- ACWI charges 0.32% a year and FBTC charges 0.25%, so FBTC is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, ACWI against FBTC, data as of Sep 21, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/acwi-vs-fbtc Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources