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

ACWX vs FXI: how they differ

ACWX and FXI hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and ACWX returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF and iShares China Large-Cap ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWX and FXI hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWX and FXI both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWXFXI
TENCENT HOLDINGS0.88%8.34%
ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING0.61%9.14%
CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORP H0.29%9.88%
XIAOMI0.15%4.83%
BANK OF CHINA LTD H0.14%4.32%
MEITUAN0.13%4.36%
PING AN INSURANCE (GROUP) CO OF CH0.12%3.80%
NETEASE0.11%3.56%
BYD H0.10%3.14%
BLK CSH FND TREASURY SL AGENCY0.11%0.08%
CHINA LIFE INSURANCE LTD H0.08%2.41%
JD.COM CLASS A0.08%2.78%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWXOnly in FXI
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 5.09%JIANGSU HENGRUI PHARMACEUTICALS LT 0.11%
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD 2.50%GIGADEVICE SEMICONDUCTOR INC CLASS 0.10%
SK HYNIX 2.04%CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK LTD H 0.09%
ASML HOLDING 1.77%S.F. HOLDING LTD CLASS H 0.08%
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 0.94%CASH COLLATERAL USD SGAFT 0.02%
ROCHE PS PAR AG 0.79%
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 0.76%
SHELL PLC 0.70%

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.

ACWX and FXI on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWX
iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF
FXI
iShares China Large-Cap ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isMSCI ACWI ex U.S.China Large-Cap
Total return, 1 year+23.0%−13.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.5 pts−31.3 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.73%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%0.0%
Holdings151553

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 Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1515 positions, with the top ten at 16.1%.

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, ACWX or FXI?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWX returned +23.0% and FXI returned −13.8%, so ACWX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWX or FXI?
ACWX charges 0.32% a year and FXI charges 0.73%, so ACWX is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWX and FXI overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of ACWX and 0% of FXI by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% 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 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, ACWX against FXI, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/acwx-vs-fxi Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources