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 IWF: how they differ

ACWX and IWF 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 Russell 1000 Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

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

Positions ACWX and IWF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingACWXIWF
SPOTIFY TECHNOLOGY0.20%0.25%
NU HOLDINGS CLASS A0.14%0.16%
BLK CSH FND TREASURY SL AGENCY0.11%0.15%
RESTAURANTS BRANDS INTERNATIONAL0.06%0.05%
BROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT VOTING0.04%0.05%
HEIDELBERG MATERIALS AG0.06%0.04%
ANGLO AMERICAN PLC0.15%0.03%
HYDRO ONE0.03%0.02%
AEROPORTS DE PARIS SA0.01%0.12%
AURA MINERALS INC0.01%0.01%
ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA0.13%0.01%
MTN GROUP0.06%0.01%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ACWXOnly in IWF
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 5.09%NVIDIA 15.46%
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD 2.50%APPLE 7.77%
SK HYNIX 2.04%ALPHABET CLASS A 5.88%
ASML HOLDING 1.77%MICROSOFT 5.55%
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 0.94%BROADCOM INC 5.10%
TENCENT HOLDINGS 0.88%ALPHABET CLASS C 4.77%
ROCHE PS PAR AG 0.79%META PLATFORMS CLASS A 3.52%
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 0.76%MICRON TECHNOLOGY 3.35%

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 IWF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ACWX
iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isMSCI ACWI ex U.S.Russell 1000 growth
Total return, 1 year+23.0%+7.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5.5 pts−10.5 pts
Expense ratio0.32%0.18%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%93.6%
Holdings1515315

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%.

IWF in plain words

IWF is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 315 positions, with the top ten at 57.3%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ACWX or IWF?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ACWX returned +23.0% and IWF returned +7.0%, so ACWX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ACWX or IWF?
ACWX charges 0.32% a year and IWF charges 0.18%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ACWX and IWF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of ACWX and 94% of IWF 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 IWF, 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 IWF, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/acwx-vs-iwf Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources