ACWI vs UGBP Fund Comparison

Minafi's Take on ACWI vs UGBP

Here's an in depth look at the differences between iShares MSCI ACWI ETF ($ACWI) and Citigroup ETNs linked to the VelocityShares Daily 4X Long GBP vs. USD Index ($UGBP).

To start off, here's a look at the basics of each fund. Keep an eye on the FI Score. That's a custom score from 0 to 100 that we generate based on how good this fund is for the casual investor. Most investors only need a handful of total funds in their portfolio. The higher the score, the more likely this is one of those few. Score alone isn't enough! Keep reading on to see how different (or perhaps similar) these two funds are.

Both $ACWI and $UGBP are categorized as ETFs. ETFs have an added bonus over mutual funds of being more widely available. Mutual funds are often limited to only the issuing investment brokerage. Since these are both ETFs, you may be able to find these at a wider number of investment apps and websites.

The biggest disadvantage of ETFs is that some platforms only allow you to purchase ETFs in whole shares. So if an ETF is going for $75, you may need to invest in increments of $75. Most 401(k)'s allow for investing down to the penny, but you'll want to verify your platform allows for "fractional ETF Shares".

To learn more about the difference between these two, you can read about the difference between ETFs and Mutual Funds.

When evaluating a fund, the first things I look at are:

• What it invests in
• How much it charges in fees
• How large the fund is

Let's look into these criteria one by one and see if either of these funds stands out.

Fund Holdings Comparison

Minafi's FI Score algorithm takes into account the category and market. The more niche a fund is, the lower the score. This doesn't mean it's a worse fund, but it does mean you should stop and make sure this a fund you need to diversify your portfolio.

A score of 10 means this is a solid market and category that almost every investor will want to have investments in. The lower the score, the more specific the investment. These scores are based on when most investors would add these funds to their portfolio. A score of 10 means that this fund (or one like it) belongs in a three-fund portfolio. The lower the score, the farther down in your portfolio a fund would go.

Winner: $ACWI

Fee Comparison

Fees are one of the biggest killers of portfolio growth. The difference between a 2% fee and a 0.04% fee over 30 years can result in your portfolio having half the total value!

If you're just getting started investing and learning how fees impact your portfolio, I'd encourage you to read through my free investment course (specifically '2.2 - All About Fees') where I go over all the different types of fees you can be charged and how to lower them.

For these two funds, ACWI has an expense ratio of 0.32% while UGBP has an expense ratio of 1.50%.

Winner: $ACWI

Fund Size Comparison

One place these two funds differ is in their total assets under management. This is a good indication of how many other investors trust this fund. A large fund by itself doesn't mean it's a good fund, but it is one thing to consider when figuring out how to choose the right fund.

In the case of these two funds, ACWI is a large fund with 11.1 Billion in assets under management. UGBP, on the other hand, is a small fund with 1.24 Million in assets under management.

Winner: $ACWI, iShares MSCI ACWI ETF

Which Should You Choose? ACWI or UGBP?

Comparing these two funds isn't an apples to apples comparison. ACWI is a Allocation Total World fund, while UGBP is a Money Market World fund.

If you're aiming to build a diversified, low-fee, tax-optimized portfolio you likely won't be choosing between these two funds since they're different enough.

Running both of these funds through Minafi's FI Score algorithm, gives ACWI a score of 83 and UGBP a score of 17.

Winner: Neither, I'd research more funds if you're looking to invest for retirement.