ACWI vs XLK ETF Comparison
Compare ACWI and XLK across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between ACWI and XLK?
ACWI is iShares MSCI ACWI ETF, while XLK is State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF. ACWI is tied to Equity; XLK is tied to Equity. ACWI is broader by holdings count, with 2,182 positions versus 74 for XLK. XLK is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | ACWI | XLK | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.08% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $33.1B | $121.1B | Fund |
| Holdings | 2,182 | 74 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 36.2% | 100.4% | Fund |
| Average volume | 3,365,644 | 6,005,380 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 26.4% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -9.7% | -16.1% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.05 | 1.75 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.20 | 1.33 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.73 | 2.05 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 56/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 6/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 60/100 | 55/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 86/100 | 61/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
ACWI leads
ACWI leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support ACWI, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ACWI over XLK, 60 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. ACWI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while XLK holds the stronger quality profile. ACWI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares MSCI ACWI ETF and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare ACWI and XLK 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.
- Risk Resilience15%86 vs 61ACWI +25
- Quality30%65 vs 74XLK +9
- Value30%43 vs 37ACWI +6
- Momentum25%60 vs 55ACWI +5
3 of 4 evidence groups favor ACWI. ACWI’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; XLK 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: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
ACWI's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ACWI and XLK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 21.4% against 8.8%.
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
ACWIACWI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
ACWIACWI on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
ACWIACWI on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
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 | XLK | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $33.1B | $121.1B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 2,202 | 73 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,365,644 | 6,005,380 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 26.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -9.7% | -16.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.20 | 1.33 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.05 | 1.75 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
ACWI and XLK share 36.8% of their weighted exposure across 65 common holdings.
XLK is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 100.38% of the fund, against 36.19% for ACWI (74 holdings vs 2182). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
2117 holdings are unique to ACWI and 9 to XLK. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | ACWI | XLK | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLAPPLE | 9.19% | 25.98% | 9.19% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 6.8% | 20.42% | 6.8% |
| NVDANVIDIA | 4.81% | 14.91% | 4.81% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 2.03% | 8.02% | 2.03% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 1.61% | 4.56% | 1.61% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 1.44% | 7.64% | 1.44% |
| INTCINTEL CORPORATION | 0.75% | 5.96% | 0.75% |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 0.7% | 4.82% | 0.7% |
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 XLK?
ACWI currently has more reported holdings, with 2,182 positions versus 74.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
XLK 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?
XLK has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
ACWI 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
3 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 | ACWI | Value 43 vs 37 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day 2.3% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day 8.4% vs 16.1% |
| Risk Resilience | ACWI | Risk Resilience 86 vs 61 |
| 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 XLK 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)
- 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ACWI +4
- 60 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- ACWI +5
- 61 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- ACWI +6
- 65 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- ACWI +10
- 61 vs 51
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.00%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.7%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1XLK closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACWI's edge.
- 2XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 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
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | ACWI | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.5 | 42.9 |
| ADX (14) | 10.2 | 11.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.3% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.4% | 16.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.8% | 21.4% |
Risk
ACWI is the more resilient| Metric | ACWI | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.05 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.2 | 1.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.73 | 2.05 |
| Max drawdown | -9.7% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -0.3% | -6.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ACWI or XLK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ACWI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 60 against XLK's 56. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. XLK 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 XLK the better buy right now?
ACWI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 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 XLK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ACWI leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; XLK leads Quality by 9 points; ACWI leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, ACWI or XLK?
ACWI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ACWI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points. 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 XLK?
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 XLK?
ACWI on the Momentum factor, by 5 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 XLK?
ACWI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ACWI on Risk Resilience, by 25 points. 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 XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is ACWI's lead over XLK getting stronger or weaker?
ACWI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ACWI vs XLK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLK closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACWI's edge; XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; 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 XLK?
ACWI: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. XLK: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 XLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ACWI and XLK 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.