ACWI vs VTWO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
ACWI and VTWO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. ACWI is iShares MSCI ACWI ETF, while VTWO is Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF. ACWI is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VTWO ahead on AIQ Score, 57 versus 56.
What is the main difference between ACWI and VTWO?
ACWI and VTWO have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | ACWI | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 2,232 | 2,001 |
| Top-10 concentration | 24.3% | 3.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.41% | 1.22% |
| Average volume | 2,637,421 | 1,516,718 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15% | +12.4% |
| YTD return | +12.2% | +11.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +10.5% | +5.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 18.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.7% | -11.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -26.4% | -31.9% |
| Beta | 1.06 | 1.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.76 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.18 | 0.94 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 48/100 | 39/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF vs Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF
VTWO leads
VTWO leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from ACWI.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support VTWO, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTWO over ACWI, 57 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. VTWO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while ACWI holds the stronger momentum profile. VTWO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTWO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. VTWO lead: Reversed — ACWI led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VTWO now leads by 1.
Compare iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
ACWI vs VTWO: 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 | VTWO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.32% | 0.06% | VTWO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 2,232 | 2,001 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 24.3% | 3.2% | VTWO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.41% | 1.22% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.4% | -31.9% | ACWI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 14% | 18.2% | ACWI |
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 VTWO 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.
- Value41 vs 58VTWO +17
- Momentum48 vs 39ACWI +9
- Risk Resilience84 vs 76ACWI +8
- Quality64 vs 61Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor VTWO. VTWO’s edge is concentrated in value; ACWI keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
VTWO'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 VTWO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VTWO (Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals.
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 | VTWO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 2,232 | 2,001 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,637,421 | 1,516,718 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 18.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.7% | -11.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.76 | 0.56 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.06 | 1.18 | 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 VTWO share 0% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings.
2,196 holdings are unique to ACWI, and 1,996 holdings are unique to VTWO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
ACWI is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 24.34% of the fund, against 3.16% for VTWO (2,232 holdings vs 2,001). 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 | VTWO | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| PFEPFIZER | 0.15% | 0% | 0% |
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 VTWO doesn’t
| Holding | ACWI | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 4.94% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 4.45% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 3.33% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 2.35% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 1.87% | Not held |
| 2330.TWTAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING | 1.85% | Not held |
What VTWO adds that ACWI doesn’t
| Holding | VTWO | ACWI |
|---|---|---|
| MOG-AMoog Inc | 0.35% | Not held |
| HUTHut 8 Corp | 0.35% | Not held |
| UMBFUMB Financial Corp | 0.34% | Not held |
| CYTKCytokinetics Inc | 0.32% | Not held |
| VSATViasat Inc | 0.31% | Not held |
| BTSGBrightSpring Health Services Inc | 0.31% | Not held |
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 VTWO: five-year payout growth
VTWO grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 11.18% a year against ACWI's 11.06%. ACWI: The 2020 payout was 29.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. VTWO: The 2020 payout was 19.2% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | ACWI | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 11.06% | 11.18% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.300 | $0.732 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.196 | $1.243 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #51 of 138 | #49 of 138 |
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 VTWO. 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 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VTWO | Value 41 vs 58 |
| Technicals | ACWI | Price vs 50-day -0.4% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day 4.1% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ACWI | Risk Resilience 84 vs 76 |
| 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 VTWO 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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 VTWO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VTWO lead: Reversed — ACWI led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VTWO now leads by 1.
- Today
- VTWO +1
- 56 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- ACWI +1
- 55 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- ACWI +1
- 55 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- ACWI +1
- 65 vs 64
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when ACWI moved ahead of VTWO.
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
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.1%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VTWO 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 +0.24%, 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 Value gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTWO's edge.
- 2ACWI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3VTWO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
ACWI leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ACWI | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.1% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.7% | -6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.7% | 0.4% |
| Year to date | 12.2% | 11.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15% | 12.4% |
Technicals
ACWI has the stronger structure| Metric | ACWI | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50 | 46.9 |
| ADX (14) | 16 | 41.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.4% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.1% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 10.2% | 16.1% |
Risk
ACWI is the more resilient| Metric | ACWI | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.06 | 1.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.76 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.18 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -9.7% | -11.4% |
| Current drawdown | -2.3% | -9.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 18.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between ACWI and VTWO?
ACWI and VTWO have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do ACWI and VTWO overlap?
ACWI and VTWO share 0% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings. 2,196 holdings are unique to ACWI, and 1,996 holdings are unique to VTWO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, ACWI or VTWO?
They hold a similar number of positions: 2,232 for ACWI and 2,001 for VTWO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTWO has the lower expense ratio, 0.06% a year against 0.32% for ACWI.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.41% for ACWI and 1.22% for VTWO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VTWO has been more volatile over the past year, at 18.2% annualized against 14% for ACWI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
ACWI fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -26.4% against -31.9% for VTWO.
Compare ACWI and VTWO 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.