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 IJR: how they differ

ACWX and IJR hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and ACWX returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF and iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ACWX and IJR hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ACWX and IJR both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWXIJR
AIRBUS GROUP0.36%0.28%
LVMH0.31%0.23%
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY0.17%0.28%
BLK CSH FND TREASURY SL AGENCY0.11%1.94%
UCB SA0.08%0.24%
SIEMENS ENERGY N AG0.34%0.07%
CREDIT AGRICOLE SA0.06%0.41%
MTU AERO ENGINES HOLDING AG0.06%0.12%
FINECOBANK BANCA FINECO0.04%0.13%
TERNA RETE ELETTRICA NAZIONALE0.04%0.13%
ABSA GROUP0.03%0.22%
SIGMA HEALTHCARE0.03%0.22%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWXOnly in IJR
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 5.09%CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS 0.62%
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD 2.50%VIASAT INC 0.57%
SK HYNIX 2.04%GLAUKOS 0.57%
ASML HOLDING 1.77%MATCH GROUP INC 0.56%
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 0.94%BRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC 0.52%
TENCENT HOLDINGS 0.88%QORVO 0.51%
ROCHE PS PAR AG 0.79%PAYCOM SOFTWARE 0.51%
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 0.76%PROTAGONIST THERAPEUTICS 0.50%

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 IJR on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWX
iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF
IJR
iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isMSCI ACWI ex U.S.S&P SmallCap 600
Total return, 1 year+23.0%+19.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.5 pts+2.4 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.06%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%0.0%
Holdings1515608

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%.

IJR in plain words

IJR is an index equity fund tracking the S&P SmallCap 600. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +19.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.06% 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 608 positions, with the top ten at 6.8%. It sat 5.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWX or IJR?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWX returned +23.0% and IJR returned +19.9%, so ACWX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWX or IJR?
ACWX charges 0.32% a year and IJR charges 0.06%, so IJR is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWX and IJR overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of ACWX and 0% of IJR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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 IJR, 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 IJR, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/acwx-vs-ijr Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources