ACWI vs IJH ETF Comparison
Compare ACWI and IJH across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between ACWI and IJH?
ACWI is iShares MSCI ACWI ETF, while IJH is iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF. ACWI is tied to Equity; IJH is tied to Equity. ACWI is broader by holdings count, with 2,182 positions versus 400 for IJH. ACWI is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | ACWI | IJH | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.05% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $33.1B | $124.6B | Fund |
| Holdings | 2,182 | 400 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 36.2% | 12.9% | Fund |
| Average volume | 3,365,644 | 11,939,680 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 15.5% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -9.7% | -9% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.05 | 0.97 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.20 | 0.83 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.73 | 1.34 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 56/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 6/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 60/100 | 31/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 86/100 | 84/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF vs iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF
ACWI leads
ACWI leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from IJH.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support ACWI, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ACWI over IJH, 60 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. ACWI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while IJH holds the stronger quality profile. ACWI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor ACWI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. ACWI lead: Reversed — IJH led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ACWI now leads by 4.
Compare iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare ACWI and IJH 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.
- Momentum25%60 vs 31ACWI +29
- Quality30%65 vs 72IJH +7
- Value30%43 vs 46Even
- Risk Resilience15%86 vs 84Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor ACWI. ACWI’s edge is concentrated in momentum; IJH keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Value -1
No new signals fired.
ACWI's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ACWI and IJH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
IJH (iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF): the counter-case, on quality.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
ACWIACWI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
ACWIACWI on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
ACWIACWI carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | IJH | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.05% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $33.1B | $124.6B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 2,202 | 407 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,365,644 | 11,939,680 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 15.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -9.7% | -9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.20 | 0.83 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.05 | 0.97 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
ACWI and IJH share 0.82% of their weighted exposure across 32 common holdings.
ACWI is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 36.19% of the fund, against 12.9% for IJH (2182 holdings vs 400). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
2150 holdings are unique to ACWI and 368 to IJH. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | ACWI | IJH | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| ILMNILLUMINA INC | 0.06% | 1.57% | 0.06% |
| OKTAOKTA CLASS A | 0.05% | 1.29% | 0.05% |
| CRSCARPENTER TECHNOLOGY | 0.04% | 1.45% | 0.04% |
| CWCURTISS WRIGHT | 0.04% | 1.38% | 0.04% |
| CDECOEUR MINING | 0.04% | 1.08% | 0.04% |
| XPOXPO | 0.04% | 1.33% | 0.04% |
| RSRELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM | 0.04% | 1.18% | 0.04% |
| MTZMASTEC INC | 0.03% | 1% | 0.03% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, ACWI or IJH?
ACWI currently has more reported holdings, with 2,182 positions versus 400.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IJH has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IJH has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IJH has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
ACWI currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 60 to 56.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor ACWI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ACWI | 60 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 43 vs 46 |
| Technicals | ACWI | Price vs 50-day 2.3% vs -0.5%; vs 200-day 8.4% vs 5.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 86 vs 84 |
| 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 IJH 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 ACWI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3ACWI lead: Reversed — IJH led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ACWI now leads by 4.
- Today
- ACWI +4
- 60 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- ACWI +4
- 61 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- IJH +2
- 65 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- IJH +5
- 61 vs 66
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when IJH 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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.85%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.42%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
ACWI 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.03%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.13%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1IJH closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACWI's edge.
- 2IJH's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ACWI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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.
Technicals
ACWI has the stronger structure| Metric | ACWI | IJH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.5 | 29.3 |
| ADX (14) | 10.2 | 21.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.3% | -0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.4% | 5.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.8% | 12% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ACWI | IJH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.05 | 0.97 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.2 | 0.83 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.73 | 1.34 |
| Max drawdown | -9.7% | -9% |
| Current drawdown | -0.3% | -3.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 15.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ACWI or IJH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ACWI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 60 against IJH's 56. The edge comes from momentum. IJH is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is ACWI or IJH the better buy right now?
ACWI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ACWI over IJH?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ACWI leads Momentum by 29 points; IJH leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, ACWI or IJH?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, ACWI or IJH?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, ACWI or IJH?
ACWI on the Momentum factor, by 29 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, ACWI or IJH?
ACWI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ACWI carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ACWI more profitable than IJH?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is ACWI's lead over IJH getting stronger or weaker?
ACWI lead: Reversed — IJH led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ACWI now leads by 4. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when IJH moved ahead of ACWI.
What would change the ACWI vs IJH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IJH closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACWI's edge; IJH's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ACWI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ACWI and IJH?
ACWI: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. IJH: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on ACWI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IJH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ACWI and IJH with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.