Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
ACWX vs ILF: how they differ
ACWX and ILF hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and ILF returned more over the year.
iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF and iShares Latin America 40 ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, ACWX and ILF hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | ACWX | ILF |
|---|---|---|
| NU HOLDINGS CLASS A | 0.14% | 8.61% |
| BLK CSH FND TREASURY SL AGENCY | 0.11% | 0.31% |
| GRUPO MEXICO B | 0.10% | 6.02% |
| GPO FINANCE BANORTE | 0.08% | 4.24% |
| CREDICORP LTD | 0.07% | 3.85% |
| AMERICA MOVIL B | 0.05% | 3.08% |
| B3 BRASIL BOLSA BALCAO SA | 0.05% | 2.62% |
| FOMENTO ECONOMICO MEXICANO | 0.05% | 2.93% |
| SOUTHERN COPPER CORP | 0.05% | 2.45% |
| AXIA ENERGIA SA | 0.04% | 1.83% |
| CEMEX CPO | 0.04% | 2.41% |
| ITAUSA INVESTIMENTOS ITAU PREF SA | 0.04% | 2.42% |
| Only in ACWX | Only in ILF |
|---|---|
| TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 5.09% | VALE ADR REPRESENTING ONE 8.00% |
| SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD 2.50% | ITAU UNIBANCO HOLDING ADR REP PRE 6.71% |
| SK HYNIX 2.04% | PETROLEO BRASILEIRO ADR REPTG PRE 6.33% |
| ASML HOLDING 1.77% | PETROLEO BRASILEIRO ADR REPTG SA 5.94% |
| HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 0.94% | BANCO BRADESCO ADR REPTG PREF 2.83% |
| TENCENT HOLDINGS 0.88% | AMBEV ADR REPRESENTING ONE SA 1.93% |
| ROCHE PS PAR AG 0.79% | GRUPO CIBEST AMERICAN DEPOSITARY S 1.69% |
| ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 0.76% | SOCIEDAD QUIMICA Y MINERA DE CHILE 1.55% |
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 iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF | ILF iShares Latin America 40 ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | MSCI ACWI ex U.S. | Latin America 40 |
| Total return, 1 year | +23.0% | +33.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +5.5 pts | +15.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.47% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Holdings | 1515 | 47 |
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%.
ILF in plain words
ILF is an index equity fund tracking the Latin America 40. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +33.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.47% 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 47 positions, with the top ten at 55.7%. It sat 4.4% below its high of Apr 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, ACWX or ILF?
- In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWX returned +23.0% and ILF returned +33.4%, so ILF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, ACWX or ILF?
- ACWX charges 0.32% a year and ILF charges 0.47%, so ACWX is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do ACWX and ILF overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 0% of ACWX and 0% of ILF 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, ACWX against ILF, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/acwx-vs-ilf Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources