ACWI vs VT: which ETF won each year?

Yearly returns side by side, one winner per year — dividends included, priced as you'd actually buy them.

ACWI tracks the MSCI ACWI IndexVT tracks the FTSE Global All Cap Index

What did the last 10 years do to $10,000?

You invest $10,000 at the start of the window and touch nothing — dividends reinvested, the running year not counted.

ACWI turned it into
$30,708
+11.87% per year on average · 20162025
VT turned it into
$30,414
+11.77% per year on average · 20162025
Difference
+$294
ACWI made more of the same money

ACWI vs VT, year by year

Calendar-year total returns (dividends included) side by side, and who took the crown each year. A dash means the fund did not exist yet.

Years compared
19
where both funds were trading
ACWI won
5
years
VT won
14
years
YearACWIVTWinner
2026 (so far)+11.66%+11.93%VT
2025+22.41%+22.43%VT
2024+17.45%+16.49%ACWI
2023+22.27%+22.02%ACWI
2022-18.39%-18.00%VT
2021+18.66%+18.27%ACWI
2020+16.34%+16.59%VT
2019+26.59%+26.81%VT
2018-9.12%-9.76%ACWI
2017+24.33%+24.50%VT
2016+8.40%+8.50%VT
2015-2.21%-1.86%VT
2014+3.83%+3.68%ACWI
2013+22.38%+22.94%VT
2012+16.75%+17.12%VT
2011-7.82%-7.51%VT
2010+12.78%+13.08%VT
2009+32.36%+32.66%VT
2008-35.29%-33.05%VT

ACWI vs VT in plain words

ACWI tracks the MSCI ACWI Index while VT follows the FTSE Global All Cap Index, so they own different slices of the market and their years can look very different. ACWI charges 0.32% a year in running costs and VT charges 0.06% — VT is the cheaper fund to hold.

Both funds distribute: dividends land in your account as cash instead of being reinvested automatically. Across the 19 calendar years both funds were trading, ACWI finished the year ahead 5 times and VT 14 times. $10,000 invested at the start of 2016 was worth $30,708 in ACWI versus $30,414 in VT by the end of 2025, dividends reinvested.

Fund facts: ACWI vs VT

FactACWIVT
FundiShares MSCI ACWI ETFVanguard Total World Stock ETF
TracksMSCI ACWI IndexFTSE Global All Cap Index
Yearly cost (TER)0.32%0.06%
DividendsDistributing — dividends paid outDistributing — dividends paid out
Launched26 Mar 200824 Jun 2008

Frequently asked

Is ACWI or VT better?

Across the 19 calendar years both funds were trading, ACWI finished the year ahead 5 times and VT 14 times. $10,000 invested at the start of 2016 was worth $30,708 in ACWI versus $30,414 in VT by the end of 2025, dividends reinvested. Past returns don't promise future ones — but this is what actually happened.

What is the difference between ACWI and VT?

ACWI tracks the MSCI ACWI Index while VT follows the FTSE Global All Cap Index, so they own different slices of the market and their years can look very different. ACWI charges 0.32% a year in running costs and VT charges 0.06% — VT is the cheaper fund to hold. Both funds distribute: dividends land in your account as cash instead of being reinvested automatically.

What would $10,000 in ACWI have become?

$10,000 invested in ACWI at the start of 2016 grew to $30,708 by the end of 2025, with dividends reinvested — an average of 11.9% per year.

Related comparisons

More head-to-heads featuring ACWI or VT.