ACWI vs MOO
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF vs VanEck Agribusiness ETF
Which is better, ACWI or MOO?
ACWI has been ahead.
ACWI has a lower expense ratio. ACWI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ACWI is less concentrated, with 25.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.9%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ACWI | MOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.32%Best | 0.56% |
| AUM | $33.2B | $1.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.41% | 2.20% |
| Holdings | 2,280 | 51 |
| YTD Return | +12.14%Best | +11.54% |
| 1Y Return | +17.07%Best | +16.95% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.96%Best | +4.13% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.83%Best | -0.90% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.5%Best | 20.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.3%Best | -69.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,722Best | $9,558 |
| Top 10 Weight | 25.3%Best | 56.9% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | VanEck |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Mar 26, 2008 | Aug 31, 2007 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 28, 2008 to Oct 14, 2026 (18.5 years).
ACWI vs MOO growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 18.5 years both funds cover.
ACWI vs MOO Performance
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) is an ETF from VanEck. Over the past year ACWI returned +17.07% while MOO returned +16.95%. Year to date, ACWI is up 12.14% versus a gain of 11.54% for MOO.
Over three years, ACWI compounded at +20.96% per year against +4.13% for MOO; over five years the annualized figures are +10.83% and -0.90% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, ACWI has the edge at +6.92% annualized vs +3.91%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MOO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.6% compared with 16.5% for ACWI. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -56.3% for ACWI and -69.5% for MOO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.81. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACWI charges 0.32% per year while MOO charges 0.56%. On a $10,000 position that is $32 vs $56 annually, a gap of $24 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACWI currently yields 1.41% against 2.20% for MOO.
Holdings Overlap
0.4% of ACWI's money is in holdings MOO also owns. 66.5% of MOO's money is in holdings ACWI also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
16 positions in common, counted across the 2,139 positions we hold weights for in ACWI and 47 in MOO, against full books of 2,280 and 51.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 10 positions for MOO that do not appear in our book for ACWI (15.8% of the fund), and 507 for ACWI that do not appear in MOO (65.0%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in ACWI | Weight in MOO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEDeere & Co. | 0.16% | 8.48% | 8.32% |
| BAYN:SGBayer Ag | 0.05% | 8.07% | 8.02% |
| CTVACorteva Inc. | 0.01% | 6.86% | 6.85% |
| NTR:CANutrien Ltd | 0.03% | 6.05% | 6.02% |
| ADMAdm Un Equity | 0.04% | 5.88% | 5.84% |
| ZTSZoetis, Inc. | 0.03% | 5.60% | 5.57% |
| 6326:JPKubota Corp | 0.02% | 5.07% | 5.05% |
| CFCf Industries Ho | 0.02% | 4.01% | 3.99% |
| TSNTyson Foods Inc. Class A | 0.01% | 3.60% | 3.59% |
| BGBunge Limited Finance Corporation | 0.01% | 3.26% | 3.25% |
66.5% of MOO is already inside ACWI.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACWI or MOO?
ACWI has an expense ratio of 0.32% while MOO charges 0.56%. ACWI is the cheaper option, by $24 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ACWI or MOO?
Over the past year ACWI returned +17.07% vs +16.95% for MOO, so ACWI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), ACWI annualized +6.92% vs +3.91% for MOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ACWI or MOO?
MOO has been the more volatile fund at 20.6% annualized versus 16.5% for ACWI. Worst drawdown: ACWI -56.3% vs MOO -69.5%.
Should I hold both ACWI and MOO?
ACWI and MOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.81, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between ACWI and MOO?
66.5% of MOO's money is in holdings ACWI also owns. 66.5% of MOO's is in holdings ACWI also owns. They hold 16 positions in common, counted across the 2,139 positions we hold weights for in ACWI and 47 in MOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACWI or MOO?
ACWI yields 1.41% while MOO yields 2.20%, so MOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MOO better than ACWI?
ACWI has a lower expense ratio. ACWI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ACWI is less concentrated, with 25.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.