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 IDEV: how they differ

ACWX and IDEV hold 64% of their weight in the same names, and ACWX returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF and iShares Core MSCI International Developed Markets ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWX and IDEV hold 64% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWX and IDEV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWXIDEV
ASML HOLDING1.77%2.29%
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC0.94%1.22%
ROCHE PS PAR AG0.79%1.02%
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA0.76%0.98%
SHELL PLC0.70%0.91%
MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP0.67%0.88%
NOVARTIS AG0.67%0.87%
NESTLE SA0.65%0.85%
ASTRAZENECA PLC0.63%0.83%
BHP GROUP LTD0.61%0.80%
SIEMENS N AG0.58%0.75%
TORONTO DOMINION0.53%0.69%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWXOnly in IDEV
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 5.09%USD CASH 0.13%
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD 2.50%HUDBAY MINERALS 0.04%
SK HYNIX 2.04%IAMGOLD CORP 0.04%
TENCENT HOLDINGS 0.88%IMI PLC 0.04%
ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING 0.61%ACCELLERON N AG 0.03%
MEDIATEK 0.57%ALS 0.03%
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS NON VOTING PRE 0.32%ARITZIA SUBORDINATE VOTING 0.03%
CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORP H 0.29%ASMPT LTD 0.03%

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 IDEV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWX
iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF
IDEV
iShares Core MSCI International Developed Markets ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isMSCI ACWI ex U.S.Core MSCI International Developed Markets
Total return, 1 year+23.0%+18.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.5 pts+1.2 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.04%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%0.1%
Holdings15151782

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%.

IDEV in plain words

IDEV is an index equity fund tracking the Core MSCI International Developed Markets. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% 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 1782 positions, with the top ten at 10.6%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWX or IDEV?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWX returned +23.0% and IDEV returned +18.7%, so ACWX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWX or IDEV?
ACWX charges 0.32% a year and IDEV charges 0.04%, so IDEV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWX and IDEV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of ACWX and 0% of IDEV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 64% 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 IDEV, 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 IDEV, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/acwx-vs-idev Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources