ACWX vs VTI
iShares MSCI ACWI ex US ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, ACWX or VTI?
Each has led over a different period.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. ACWX led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ACWX is less concentrated, with 16.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.5%.
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 | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.32% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $17.6B | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.52% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 1,913 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +10.79% | +13.48%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.95%Best | +16.55% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.35% | +22.11%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.23% | +11.95%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.9% | 16.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -60.6% | -52.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,850 | $17,584Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 16.6%Best | 33.5% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Mar 26, 2008 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 31, 2008 to Oct 15, 2026 (18.5 years).
ACWX vs VTI 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.
ACWX vs VTI Performance
iShares MSCI ACWI ex US ETF (ACWX) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year ACWX returned +16.95% while VTI returned +16.55%. Year to date, ACWX is up 10.79% versus a gain of 13.48% for VTI.
Over three years, ACWX compounded at +19.35% per year against +22.11% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +8.23% and +11.95% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +10.39% annualized vs +2.92%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ACWX has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.9% compared with 16.1% for VTI. 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 -52.6% for VTI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACWX charges 0.32% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $32 vs $3 annually, a gap of $29 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACWX currently yields 2.52% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
1.3% of ACWX's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.7% of VTI's money is in holdings ACWX also owns.
ACWX and VTI share little of their money.
12 positions in common, counted across the 1,835 positions we hold weights for in ACWX and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 1,913 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,148 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for ACWX (97.0% of the fund), and 22 for ACWX that do not appear in VTI (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 VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROPRoper Technologies Inc. | 0.81% | 0.06% | 0.75% |
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 0.06% | 0.49% | 0.43% |
| DGDollar General Corp. | 0.15% | 0.04% | 0.11% |
| ORAOrange | 0.08% | 0.01% | 0.07% |
| HALHalliburton Co. | 0.02% | 0.04% | 0.02% |
| RBARitchie Brothers Auctioneers, Inc. | 0.04% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| LABStandard BioTools Inc | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.06% |
| 196170:KRAlteogen Inc | 0.03% | 0.01% | 0.02% |
| FBKFb Financial Corp | 0.04% | 0.00% | 0.04% |
| AMAntero Midstream Corporationam | 0.02% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ACWX and VTI 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 VTI?
ACWX has an expense ratio of 0.32% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $29 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ACWX or VTI?
Over the past year ACWX returned +16.95% vs +16.55% for VTI, so ACWX leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), ACWX annualized +2.92% vs +10.39% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ACWX or VTI?
ACWX has been the more volatile fund at 17.9% annualized versus 16.1% for VTI. Worst drawdown: ACWX -60.6% vs VTI -52.6%.
Should I hold both ACWX and VTI?
ACWX and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, 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 VTI?
1.3% of ACWX's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.7% of VTI's is in holdings ACWX also owns. They hold 12 positions in common, counted across the 1,835 positions we hold weights for in ACWX and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACWX or VTI?
ACWX yields 2.52% while VTI yields 1.06%, so ACWX currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than ACWX?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. ACWX led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. ACWX is less concentrated, with 16.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.