ACWI vs MTUM: Correlation & Overlap
Measured on weekly returns over the past three years, iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) carry a correlation of 0.86, a very strong link. Looking through to holdings, 18.6% of the two portfolios is the same by weight.
Data as of 2026-08-27 · refreshed every trading day · weekly returns · methodology
How correlated are ACWI and MTUM?
On 3 years of weekly data the ACWI/MTUM correlation comes out at 0.86, very strong, meaning they move nearly in lockstep. Little has changed lately, as the 1-year reading of 0.79 lands near the 3-year figure. The 5-year figure is 0.84, and annualized covariance runs at 242.7 %².
Among the 119 assets we track against ACWI, MTUM ranks #26 by 3-year correlation. Twelve-month performance is nearly a tie, at +22.7% for ACWI and +25.2% for MTUM. The link looks structural: the rolling one-year correlation barely moved, holding between 0.73 and 0.93.
How is this computed?
Pearson correlation on weekly returns: ρ(A,B) = cov(rA, rB) / (σA · σB), over windows of 52, 156 and 260 weeks. Covariance is annualized (×52) and expressed in %². Full definitions on the methodology page.
ACWI vs MTUM: side by side
| ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF) | MTUM (iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-year return | +22.7% | +25.2% |
| 5-year return | +69.0% | +76.1% |
| Volatility (ann.) | 13.8% | 20.6% |
| Beta vs S&P 500 | 0.92 | 1.25 |
| Max drawdown (3Y) | -16.5% | -21.0% |
| Dividend yield | 1.44% | 0.62% |
| Expense ratio | 0.32% | 0.15% |
| Assets under management | $32.5B | $25.3B |
| Sector / category | ETF · Global | ETF · US Style |
ACWI, iShares's Global Large-Stock Blend fund, carries $32.5B under management, 1590 holdings, a 0.32% expense ratio, a 1.44% trailing dividend yield. MTUM is a Large Blend fund from iShares: $25.3B under management, 126 holdings, a 0.15% expense ratio, a 0.62% trailing dividend yield.
Portfolio overlap between ACWI and MTUM
The two portfolios partially overlap, with 126 holdings in common adding up to 18.6% of fund weight. Where correlation shows the co-movement, the overlap shows its source.
| Common holding | Weight in ACWI | Weight in MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| GOOGL | 1.91% | 2.44% |
| AVGO | 1.53% | 4.25% |
| GOOG | 1.50% | 1.89% |
| MU | 1.01% | 6.60% |
| AMD | 0.75% | 5.09% |
| XOM | 0.63% | 3.78% |
| JNJ | 0.62% | 3.67% |
| WMT | 0.44% | 2.44% |
| CSCO | 0.43% | 2.43% |
| INTC | 0.37% | 3.91% |
| LRCX | 0.37% | 3.26% |
| CAT | 0.37% | 3.63% |
| AMAT | 0.36% | 2.89% |
| CVX | 0.35% | 1.75% |
| GS | 0.30% | 1.38% |
Largest positions held only by ACWI: NVDA (4.64%), AAPL (4.41%), MSFT (3.35%), AMZN (2.41%), 2330 (1.79%). Only by MTUM: .
Overlap = sum of the smaller of the two weights across common holdings, from issuer disclosures as of 2026-08-26. Top 15 common positions shown.
Year-by-year returns
| Year | ACWI | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | -18.4% | -18.3% |
| 2023 | +22.3% | +9.1% |
| 2024 | +17.4% | +32.9% |
| 2025 | +22.4% | +22.1% |
| 2026 | +14.9% | +21.8% |
Calendar-year price returns; the current year is year-to-date as of the data date above.
Are ACWI and MTUM good diversifiers for each other?
Not really. At 0.86, the two trade almost as one position, and owning both buys little extra protection.
FAQ
What is the correlation between ACWI and MTUM?
As of 2026-08-27, the correlation of weekly returns between ACWI and MTUM is 0.86 over 3 years, 0.79 over 1 year and 0.84 over 5 years.
Is MTUM a good diversifier for ACWI?
Not really. At 0.86, the two trade almost as one position, and owning both buys little extra protection.
How much do ACWI and MTUM overlap?
The two funds share 126 holdings amounting to 18.6% of weight, per issuer portfolio files dated 2026-08-26.
Use this data
$ curl https://www.pairbook.io/api/v1/pairs/acwi-vs-mtum.json
Markdown for the live badge, attribution link included:
[](https://www.pairbook.io/pair/acwi-vs-mtum/)
Free with attribution; caching and terms are described in the API documentation.
Related comparisons
Hubs: ACWI correlations · MTUM correlations
