ACSG vs SPY
American Century Small Cap Growth Insights ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
Which is better, ACSG or SPY?
Small Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
SPY has a lower expense ratio. ACSG led over 1Y. ACSG is less concentrated, with 8.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.0%.
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 | ACSG | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.09%Best |
| AUM | $51M | $804.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.98% |
| Holdings | 303 | 505 |
| YTD Return | +15.09%Best | +11.52% |
| 1Y Return | +17.61%Best | +17.48% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +20.62% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.73% |
| Top 10 Weight | 8.5%Best | 38.0% |
| Fund Family | American Century ETFs | State Street Investment Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Oct 14, 2025 | Jan 22, 1993 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
ACSG vs SPY 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
ACSG vs SPY Performance
American Century Small Cap Growth Insights ETF (ACSG) is an ETF from American Century ETFs and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) is an ETF from State Street Investment Management. Over the past year ACSG returned +17.61% while SPY returned +17.48%. Year to date, ACSG is up 15.09% versus a gain of 11.52% for SPY.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACSG charges 0.49% per year while SPY charges 0.09%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $9 annually, a gap of $40 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACSG currently yields 0.00% against 0.98% for SPY.
Holdings Overlap
0.2% of ACSG's money is in holdings SPY also owns.
We cannot see either book well enough to say how much of this pair is duplicated.
1 positions in common, counted across the 291 positions we hold weights for in ACSG and 504 in SPY, against full books of 303 and 505.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 493 positions for SPY that do not appear in our book for ACSG (99.5% of the fund), and 264 for ACSG that do not appear in SPY (91.8%).
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 ACSG | Weight in SPY | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDSFactset Research Systems Inc. | 0.16% | 0.02% | 0.14% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ACSG and SPY 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, ACSG or SPY?
ACSG has an expense ratio of 0.49% while SPY charges 0.09%. SPY is the cheaper option, by $40 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ACSG or SPY?
Over the past year ACSG returned +17.61% vs +17.48% for SPY, so ACSG leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACSG or SPY?
ACSG yields 0.00% while SPY yields 0.98%, so SPY currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SPY better than ACSG?
SPY has a lower expense ratio. ACSG led over 1Y. ACSG is less concentrated, with 8.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.