SSAC (ISAC) vs IWFV: which ETF won each year?

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

Every figure here is in pounds — what you'd actually pocket buying on the London Stock Exchange. Fund fact sheets usually headline returns in US dollars, which can look very different in years when the pound moves against the dollar. Here's the full story, year by year.

SSAC tracks the MSCI ACWI IndexIWFV tracks the MSCI World Enhanced Value 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.

SSAC turned it into
£33,247
+12.77% per year on average · 20162025
IWFV turned it into
£27,242
+10.54% per year on average · 20162025
Difference
+£6,005
SSAC made more of the same money

SSAC vs IWFV, 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
13
where both funds were trading
SSAC won
8
years
IWFV won
5
years
YearSSACIWFVWinner
2026 (so far)+12.33%+33.94%IWFV
2025+13.95%+30.69%IWFV
2024+19.63%+6.85%SSAC
2023+16.14%+13.02%SSAC
2022-8.56%+0.95%IWFV
2021+20.35%+21.60%IWFV
2020+11.80%-6.91%SSAC
2019+22.09%+14.69%SSAC
2018-4.76%-9.34%SSAC
2017+13.26%+12.04%SSAC
2016+29.60%+29.68%IWFV
2015+1.60%+1.33%SSAC
2014+11.27%-34.90%SSAC
2013+21.20%
2012+9.30%
2011-35.63%

SSAC vs IWFV in plain words

SSAC tracks the MSCI ACWI Index while IWFV follows the MSCI World Enhanced Value Index, so they own different slices of the market and their years can look very different. SSAC charges 0.20% a year in running costs and IWFV charges 0.25% — SSAC is the cheaper fund to hold.

Both are accumulating funds: dividends are reinvested inside the fund and show up as a higher share price, never as a payout. Across the 13 calendar years both funds were trading, SSAC finished the year ahead 8 times and IWFV 5 times. £10,000 invested at the start of 2016 was worth £33,247 in SSAC versus £27,242 in IWFV by the end of 2025, dividends reinvested.

ISAC is the London (USD) listing and IUSQ the Xetra (EUR) line of the same fund, ISIN IE00B6R52259 — SSAC is its GBP line on the London Stock Exchange.

IWVL is the London (USD) listing and IS3S the Xetra (EUR) line of the same fund, ISIN IE00BP3QZB59 — IWFV is its GBP line on the London Stock Exchange.

Fund facts: SSAC vs IWFV

FactSSACIWFV
FundiShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF USD (Acc)iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF
TracksMSCI ACWI IndexMSCI World Enhanced Value Index
Yearly cost (TER)0.20%0.25%
DividendsAccumulating — dividends reinvestedAccumulating — dividends reinvested
Launched21 Oct 20113 Oct 2014
ISINIE00B6R52259IE00BP3QZB59
Also trades asISAC

Frequently asked

Is SSAC or IWFV better?

Across the 13 calendar years both funds were trading, SSAC finished the year ahead 8 times and IWFV 5 times. £10,000 invested at the start of 2016 was worth £33,247 in SSAC versus £27,242 in IWFV 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 SSAC and IWFV?

SSAC tracks the MSCI ACWI Index while IWFV follows the MSCI World Enhanced Value Index, so they own different slices of the market and their years can look very different. SSAC charges 0.20% a year in running costs and IWFV charges 0.25% — SSAC is the cheaper fund to hold. Both are accumulating funds: dividends are reinvested inside the fund and show up as a higher share price, never as a payout.

What would £10,000 in SSAC have become?

£10,000 invested in SSAC at the start of 2016 grew to £33,247 by the end of 2025, with dividends reinvested — an average of 12.8% per year.

Is ISAC the same as SSAC?

ISAC is the London (USD) listing and IUSQ the Xetra (EUR) line of the same fund, ISIN IE00B6R52259 — SSAC is its GBP line on the London Stock Exchange.

Related comparisons

More head-to-heads featuring SSAC or IWFV.