ACWV vs VTI
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ACWV | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.20% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $3.3B | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.96% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 437 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +6.80% | +14.96% | |
| 1Y Return | +7.26% | +22.39% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.05% | +21.51% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.72% | +12.36% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 10.0% | 15.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -28.8% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Oct 18, 2011 | May 24, 2001 |
ACWV vs VTI Performance
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year ACWV returned +7.26% while VTI returned +22.39%. Year to date, ACWV is up 6.80% versus a gain of 14.96% for VTI.
Over three years, ACWV compounded at +11.05% per year against +21.51% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +5.72% and +12.36% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, ACWV has the edge at +8.51% annualized vs +8.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.4% compared with 10.0% for ACWV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -28.8% for ACWV and -56.6% for VTI. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.79. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACWV charges 0.20% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $20 vs $3 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACWV currently yields 1.96% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
ACWV and VTI share 150 holdings out of 3014 unique holdings combined, representing a 21.2% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACWV or VTI?
ACWV has an expense ratio of 0.20% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $17 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ACWV or VTI?
Over the past year ACWV returned +7.26% vs +22.39% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), ACWV annualized +8.51% vs +8.16% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ACWV or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.4% annualized versus 10.0% for ACWV. Worst drawdown: ACWV -28.8% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both ACWV and VTI?
ACWV and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.79, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ACWV and VTI?
ACWV and VTI share 150 common holdings with a 21.2% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 3014 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACWV or VTI?
ACWV yields 1.96% while VTI yields 1.07%, so ACWV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.