ACWI vs DUHP: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
ACWI and DUHP are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. ACWI is iShares MSCI ACWI ETF, while DUHP is U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares. ACWI is broader by holdings count, with 2,232 positions versus 161 for DUHP. DUHP is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has DUHP ahead on AIQ Score, 59 versus 56.
What is the main difference between ACWI and DUHP?
ACWI holds 2,232 positions to DUHP's 161, and 28% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | ACWI | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.24% |
| Holdings | 2,232 | 161 |
| Top-10 concentration | 24.3% | 43% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.41% | 0.84% |
| Average volume | 2,637,421 | 812,057 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15% | +13.4% |
| YTD return | +12.2% | +11.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 11.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.7% | -9.2% |
| Beta | 1.06 | 0.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.18 | 1.17 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 59/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 48/100 | 73/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 85/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF vs U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares
DUHP leads
DUHP leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support DUHP, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DUHP over ACWI, 59 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. DUHP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while ACWI holds the stronger quality profile. DUHP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DUHP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. DUHP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
ACWI vs DUHP: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | ACWI | DUHP | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.32% | 0.24% | DUHP |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 2,232 | 161 | ACWI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 24.3% | 43% | ACWI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.41% | 0.84% | ACWI |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -9.7% | -9.2% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 14% | 11.8% | DUHP |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare ACWI and DUHP against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum48 vs 73DUHP +25
- Quality64 vs 58ACWI +6
- Value41 vs 35ACWI +6
- Risk Resilience84 vs 85Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor DUHP. DUHP’s edge is concentrated in momentum; ACWI keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
DUHP's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ACWI and DUHP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DUHP (U.S. High Relative Profitability Portfolio ETF Class Shares): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF): the counter-case, on quality, value, valuation.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | ACWI | DUHP | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.24% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 2,232 | 161 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,637,421 | 812,057 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 11.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.7% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.76 | 0.76 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.06 | 0.87 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
ACWI and DUHP share 28.24% of their weighted exposure across 141 common holdings.
2,056 holdings are unique to ACWI, and 19 holdings are unique to DUHP. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
DUHP is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 43% of the fund, against 24.34% for ACWI (161 holdings vs 2,232). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | ACWI | DUHP | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 4.94% | 7.79% | 4.94% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC. | 4.45% | 7.3% | 4.45% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 3.33% | 5.01% | 3.33% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC | 1.38% | 3.69% | 1.38% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC. | 1.12% | 3.78% | 1.12% |
| LLYELI LILLY AND COMPANY | 0.86% | 4.4% | 0.86% |
| VVISA INC | 0.58% | 4.22% | 0.58% |
| MAMASTERCARD INC - A | 0.44% | 2.37% | 0.44% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What ACWI adds that DUHP doesn’t
| Holding | ACWI | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 2.35% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 1.87% | Not held |
| 2330.TWTAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING | 1.85% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 1.58% | Not held |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 1.47% | Not held |
| TSLATESLA INC | 1.01% | Not held |
What DUHP adds that ACWI doesn’t
| Holding | DUHP | ACWI |
|---|---|---|
| LLYELI LILLY AND COMPANY | 4.4% | 0.86% |
| VVISA INC | 4.22% | 0.58% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC. | 3.78% | 1.12% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC | 3.69% | 1.38% |
| MAMASTERCARD INC - A | 2.37% | 0.44% |
| CATCATERPILLAR INC. | 2.3% | 0.36% |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
ACWI vs DUHP: five-year payout growth
ACWI grew its split-adjusted payout at 11.06% a year over 2020-2025. DUHP began paying distributions in 2022, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. ACWI: The 2020 payout was 29.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | ACWI | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $2.196 | $0.388 |
| Peer rank | #51 of 138 | not ranked |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DUHP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 56 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | ACWI | Value 41 vs 35 |
| Technicals | DUHP | Price vs 50-day -0.4% vs 1.2%; vs 200-day 4.1% vs 5.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 84 vs 85 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ACWI and DUHP and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on DUHP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20DUHP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DUHP +3
- 56 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- DUHP +2
- 55 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- DUHP +2
- 55 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- ACWI +6
- 65 vs 59
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when DUHP moved ahead of ACWI.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only ACWI
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only DUHP
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week High Proximity, MACD Bearish Crossover.
DUHP leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.5%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.49%, AIQ +2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1ACWI closes the Momentum gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to DUHP's edge.
- 2ACWI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3DUHP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
DUHP leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ACWI | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.1% | 0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.7% | 2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.7% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | 12.2% | 11.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15% | 13.4% |
Technicals
DUHP has the stronger structure| Metric | ACWI | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50 | 63.2 |
| ADX (14) | 16 | 8.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.4% | 1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.1% | 5.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 10.2% | 8.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ACWI | DUHP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.06 | 0.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.18 | 1.17 |
| Max drawdown | -9.7% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -2.3% | -0.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 11.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between ACWI and DUHP?
ACWI holds 2,232 positions to DUHP's 161, and 28% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do ACWI and DUHP overlap?
ACWI and DUHP share 28.24% of their weighted exposure across 141 common holdings. 2,056 holdings are unique to ACWI, and 19 holdings are unique to DUHP. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, ACWI or DUHP?
ACWI holds more positions: 2,232 versus 161 for DUHP.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
DUHP has the lower expense ratio, 0.24% a year against 0.32% for ACWI.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
ACWI, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.41% against 0.84% for DUHP.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
ACWI has been more volatile over the past year, at 14% annualized against 11.8% for DUHP.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -9.7% for ACWI and -9.2% for DUHP.
Compare ACWI and DUHP with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.