ACWX vs QQQ
iShares MSCI ACWI ex US ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Which is better, ACWX or QQQ?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ACWX is less concentrated, with 16.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.7%.
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 | ACWX | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.32% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $17.6B | $506.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.52% | 0.42% |
| Holdings | 1,913 | 321 |
| YTD Return | +10.33% | +19.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.40% | +22.47%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.21% | +26.18%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.32% | +15.42%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.9%Best | 18.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -60.6% | -49.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,912 | $20,484Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 16.6%Best | 46.7% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Mar 26, 2008 | Mar 10, 1999 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 31, 2008 to Oct 14, 2026 (18.5 years).
ACWX vs QQQ 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
ACWX vs QQQ Performance
iShares MSCI ACWI ex US ETF (ACWX) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year ACWX returned +17.40% while QQQ returned +22.47%. Year to date, ACWX is up 10.33% versus a gain of 19.30% for QQQ.
Over three years, ACWX compounded at +19.21% per year against +26.18% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +8.32% and +15.42% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +16.60% annualized vs +2.90%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.8% compared with 17.9% for ACWX. 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 -60.6% for ACWX and -49.4% for QQQ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.77. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACWX charges 0.32% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $32 vs $18 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACWX currently yields 2.52% against 0.42% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
3.6% of ACWX's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 2.5% of QQQ's money is in holdings ACWX also owns.
ACWX and QQQ share little of their money.
8 positions in common, counted across the 1,835 positions we hold weights for in ACWX and 101 in QQQ, against full books of 1,913 and 321.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 92 positions for QQQ that do not appear in our book for ACWX (96.1% of the fund), and 26 for ACWX that do not appear in QQQ (4.4%).
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 ACWX | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASML:ASASML HOLDING NV | 1.90% | 0.71% | 1.19% |
| SHOP:CASHOPIFY INC | 0.50% | 0.75% | 0.25% |
| ROPRoper Technologies Inc. | 0.81% | 0.14% | 0.67% |
| NBIS:ASNebius Group Nv | 0.13% | 0.23% | 0.10% |
| PDD:IEPdd Holdings Inc. | 0.11% | 0.22% | 0.11% |
| CCEP:LNCoca-Cola Europacific Partners Plc | 0.06% | 0.18% | 0.12% |
| FER:ASFerrovial Se | 0.07% | 0.16% | 0.09% |
| TRI:CAThomson Reuters Corp | 0.04% | 0.15% | 0.11% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ACWX and QQQ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACWX or QQQ?
ACWX has an expense ratio of 0.32% while QQQ charges 0.18%. QQQ is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ACWX or QQQ?
Over the past year ACWX returned +17.40% vs +22.47% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), ACWX annualized +2.90% vs +16.60% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ACWX or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 18.8% annualized versus 17.9% for ACWX. Worst drawdown: ACWX -60.6% vs QQQ -49.4%.
Should I hold both ACWX and QQQ?
ACWX and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.77, 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 ACWX and QQQ?
3.6% of ACWX's money is in holdings QQQ also owns. 2.5% of QQQ's is in holdings ACWX also owns. They hold 8 positions in common, counted across the 1,835 positions we hold weights for in ACWX and 101 in QQQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACWX or QQQ?
ACWX yields 2.52% while QQQ yields 0.42%, so ACWX currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QQQ better than ACWX?
QQQ has a lower expense ratio. QQQ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ACWX is less concentrated, with 16.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.