SWDA vs IWFQ: 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.

SWDA tracks the MSCI World IndexIWFQ tracks the MSCI World Sector Neutral Quality 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.

SWDA turned it into
£34,992
+13.34% per year on average · 20162025
IWFQ turned it into
£33,297
+12.78% per year on average · 20162025
Difference
+£1,695
SWDA made more of the same money

SWDA vs IWFQ, 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
SWDA won
6
years
IWFQ won
7
years
YearSWDAIWFQWinner
2026 (so far)+10.56%+11.18%IWFQ
2025+12.64%+7.40%SWDA
2024+21.11%+18.93%SWDA
2023+17.59%+19.15%IWFQ
2022-8.33%-9.55%SWDA
2021+23.64%+25.17%IWFQ
2020+12.25%+10.93%SWDA
2019+23.03%+25.86%IWFQ
2018-3.78%-2.34%IWFQ
2017+11.78%+12.47%IWFQ
2016+29.59%+26.01%SWDA
2015+4.06%+7.50%IWFQ
2014+12.58%-33.59%SWDA
2013+25.32%
2012+9.19%
2011-6.19%
2010+14.57%
2009-34.91%

SWDA vs IWFQ in plain words

SWDA tracks the MSCI World Index while IWFQ follows the MSCI World Sector Neutral Quality Index, so they own different slices of the market and their years can look very different. SWDA charges 0.20% a year in running costs and IWFQ charges 0.25% — SWDA 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, SWDA finished the year ahead 6 times and IWFQ 7 times. £10,000 invested at the start of 2016 was worth £34,992 in SWDA versus £33,297 in IWFQ by the end of 2025, dividends reinvested.

IWDA (London/Amsterdam, USD) and EUNL (Xetra, EUR) are listings of the same fund, ISIN IE00B4L5Y983 — SWDA is its GBP line on the London Stock Exchange.

IWQU is the London (USD) listing and IS3Q the Xetra (EUR) line of the same fund, ISIN IE00BP3QZ601 — IWFQ is its GBP line on the London Stock Exchange.

Fund facts: SWDA vs IWFQ

FactSWDAIWFQ
FundiShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF (Acc)iShares Edge MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS ETF (Acc)
TracksMSCI World IndexMSCI World Sector Neutral Quality Index
Yearly cost (TER)0.20%0.25%
DividendsAccumulating — dividends reinvestedAccumulating — dividends reinvested
Launched25 Sept 20093 Oct 2014
ISINIE00B4L5Y983IE00BP3QZ601

Frequently asked

Is SWDA or IWFQ better?

Across the 13 calendar years both funds were trading, SWDA finished the year ahead 6 times and IWFQ 7 times. £10,000 invested at the start of 2016 was worth £34,992 in SWDA versus £33,297 in IWFQ 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 SWDA and IWFQ?

SWDA tracks the MSCI World Index while IWFQ follows the MSCI World Sector Neutral Quality Index, so they own different slices of the market and their years can look very different. SWDA charges 0.20% a year in running costs and IWFQ charges 0.25% — SWDA 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 SWDA have become?

£10,000 invested in SWDA at the start of 2016 grew to £34,992 by the end of 2025, with dividends reinvested — an average of 13.3% per year.

Related comparisons

More head-to-heads featuring SWDA or IWFQ.