DFAW vs. ACWI

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

DFAW (Dimensional World Equity ETF) and ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF) are both Global Equities funds. DFAW is actively managed, while ACWI is passively managed. Over the past year, DFAW returned 30.69% vs 29.24% for ACWI. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. DFAW charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.32%/yr for ACWI.

Performance

DFAW vs. ACWI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional World Equity ETF (DFAW) and iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DFAW achieves a 13.21% return, which is significantly higher than ACWI's 12.47% return.

DFAW

• 1D: 0.54%
• 1M: 3.61%
• YTD: 13.21%
• 6M: 14.36%
• 1Y: 30.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ACWI

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 4.45%
• YTD: 12.47%
• 6M: 13.07%
• 1Y: 29.24%
• 3Y*: 21.38%
• 5Y*: 11.35%
• 10Y*: 12.82%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

DFAW vs. ACWI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
DFAW Dimensional World Equity ETF	13.21%	20.62%	15.49%	11.57%
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF	12.47%	22.41%	17.45%	11.60%

Correlation

The correlation between DFAW and ACWI is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2023	0.96

The correlation between DFAW and ACWI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

DFAW vs. ACWI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DFAW	ACWI
Technology	24.8%	29.4%
Financial Services	15.5%	16.1%
Industrials	13.6%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.2%	9.3%
Healthcare	7.9%	8.1%
Communication Services	7.3%	9.0%
Energy	6.0%	4.2%
Basic Materials	5.0%	3.7%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	5.0%
Real Estate	2.4%	1.8%
Utilities	2.3%	2.6%

Return for Risk

DFAW vs. ACWI — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

DFAW

DFAW Risk / Return Rank: 78
DFAW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
DFAW Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
DFAW Omega Ratio Rank: 79
DFAW Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
DFAW Martin Ratio Rank: 79

ACWI

ACWI Risk / Return Rank: 70
ACWI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
ACWI Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
ACWI Omega Ratio Rank: 71
ACWI Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
ACWI Martin Ratio Rank: 73

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

DFAW vs. ACWI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional World Equity ETF (DFAW) and iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	DFAW	ACWI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.56	2.30	+0.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.55	3.17	+0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.42	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.47	3.02	+0.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.38	13.55	+1.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DFAW vs. ACWI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFAW Sharpe Ratio is 2.56, which is comparable to the ACWI Sharpe Ratio of 2.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFAW and ACWI, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	DFAW	ACWI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.56	2.30	+0.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.71	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.75	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.63	0.43	+1.20

Drawdowns

DFAW vs. ACWI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFAW drawdown since its inception was -16.93%, smaller than the maximum ACWI drawdown of -56.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFAW and ACWI.

Drawdown Indicators

	DFAW	ACWI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.93%	-56.00%	+39.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.88%	-9.73%	+0.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.55%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.42%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.17%	-0.53%	+0.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.70%	-8.61%	+6.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.00%	2.16%	-0.16%

Volatility

DFAW vs. ACWI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Dimensional World Equity ETF (DFAW) is 3.18%, while iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) has a volatility of 3.83%. This indicates that DFAW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ACWI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DFAW	ACWI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.18%	3.83%	-0.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.40%	10.30%	-0.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.04%	12.79%	-0.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.45%	16.05%	-1.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.45%	17.11%	-2.66%

DFAW vs. ACWI - Expense Ratio Comparison

DFAW has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWI's 0.32% expense ratio.

Dividends

DFAW vs. ACWI - Dividend Comparison

DFAW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, more than ACWI's 1.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF	1.38%	1.55%	1.70%	1.88%	1.79%	1.71%	1.43%	2.33%	2.18%	1.94%	2.19%	2.56%
DFAW Dimensional World Equity ETF	1.54%	1.71%	1.47%	0.42%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DFAW and ACWI in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, DFAW and ACWI move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, DFAW or ACWI?

ACWI has higher volatility (3.83%) compared to DFAW (3.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFAW dropped -16.93% vs ACWI's -56.00%.

Which ETF is better, DFAW or ACWI?

On 1-year performance, DFAW leads with 30.69% vs 29.24% for ACWI. On fees, DFAW is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, DFAW has been the lower-risk option at 3.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DFAW or ACWI?

Over the 1-year period, DFAW has performed better with a 30.69% return vs 29.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DFAW or ACWI?

DFAW is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.32% for ACWI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DFAW or ACWI?

DFAW has the higher dividend yield at 1.54%, compared with 1.38% for ACWI.

What is the main difference between DFAW and ACWI?

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for DFAW and 0.32% for ACWI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFAW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.56 vs 2.30), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.