Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

ACWI vs FXI: how they differ

ACWI and FXI hold 2% of their weight in the same names, and ACWI returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and iShares China Large-Cap ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWI and FXI hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWI and FXI both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWIFXI
TENCENT HOLDINGS0.32%8.34%
ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING0.22%9.14%
CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORP H0.10%9.88%
BLK CSH FND TREASURY SL AGENCY0.10%0.08%
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF0.06%6.56%
XIAOMI0.06%4.83%
BANK OF CHINA LTD H0.05%4.32%
MEITUAN0.05%4.36%
NETEASE0.04%3.56%
PING AN INSURANCE (GROUP) CO OF CH0.04%3.80%
BYD H0.03%3.14%
CHINA LIFE INSURANCE LTD H0.03%2.41%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWIOnly in FXI
NVIDIA 4.89%MIDEA GROUP CLASS H 0.65%
APPLE 4.67%NEW CHINA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY L 0.50%
MICROSOFT 3.38%GUOTAI HAITONG SECURITIES CO LTD H 0.49%
AMAZON.COM INC 2.38%COSCO SHIPPING HOLDINGS LTD H 0.43%
ALPHABET CLASS A 1.90%CITIC SECURITIES COMPANY H 0.37%
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 1.86%JIANGSU HENGRUI PHARMACEUTICALS LT 0.11%
BROADCOM INC 1.59%GIGADEVICE SEMICONDUCTOR INC CLASS 0.10%
ALPHABET CLASS C 1.50%CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK LTD H 0.09%

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 Sep 10, 2026.

ACWI and FXI on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
FXI
iShares China Large-Cap ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isMSCI ACWIChina Large-Cap
Total return, 1 year+19.1%−13.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.6 pts−31.3 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.73%
Already in the S&P 50061.4%0.0%
Holdings163053

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 Sep 10, 2026, 61% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1630 positions, with the top ten at 24.6%.

FXI in plain words

FXI is an index equity fund tracking the China Large-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −13.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.73% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 53 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%. It sat 28.5% below its high of Feb 17, 2021 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWI or FXI?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWI returned +19.1% and FXI returned −13.8%, so ACWI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWI or FXI?
ACWI charges 0.32% a year and FXI charges 0.73%, so ACWI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWI and FXI overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 61% of ACWI and 0% of FXI by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% 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 FXI, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 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 FXI, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/acwi-vs-fxi Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources