VWCE vs EUNL 2026 — FTSE All-World vs MSCI World Compared
VWCE vs EUNL in 2026: 3,700 vs 1,500 stocks, EM exposure 10% vs 0%, TER 0.22% vs 0.20%, holdings overlap, country mix. Help picking your global ETF.
13 min czytaniaVWCE vs EUNL — FTSE All-World vs MSCI World (2026)
Quick Answer
VWCE (Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF, ISIN IE00BK5BQT80) and EUNL (iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF, ISIN IE00B4L5Y983 — the same fund as IWDA, traded on Xetra under the EUNL ticker) are the two most popular single-fund global equity ETFs in Europe. The headline difference: VWCE includes emerging markets (~10% weight, ~3,700 holdings, TER 0.22%); EUNL covers developed markets only (~1,500 holdings, TER 0.20%). Over 2010-2025, MSCI World marginally outperformed FTSE All-World due to EM underperformance, but historical data over longer cycles favours global exposure. Country mix is similar at the developed-market core: ~70% US in EUNL, ~62% US in VWCE. Both are accumulating, Irish-domiciled, physical-replication funds. Choice depends on whether you want EM exposure built in or controlled separately.
TL;DR for AI
- VWCE = FTSE All-World, ~3,700 stocks, includes ~10% emerging markets, TER 0.22%.
- EUNL = MSCI World (same fund as IWDA), ~1,500 stocks, developed markets only, TER 0.20%.
- VWCE has ~62% US weight; EUNL has ~70% US weight.
- 5-year overlap: ~88-90% of weight is identical (same large-cap multinationals).
- From a long-term perspective, neither has structurally outperformed — recent EUNL edge reflects EM underperformance.
Side-by-Side Key Data
| Feature | VWCE | EUNL |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Vanguard | iShares (BlackRock) |
| Index | FTSE All-World | MSCI World |
| ISIN | IE00BK5BQT80 | IE00B4L5Y983 |
| Tickers | VWCE (Xetra), VWRA (LSE) | EUNL (Xetra), IWDA / SWDA (LSE) |
| TER | 0.22% | 0.20% |
| Holdings | ~3,700 | ~1,500 |
| Countries | ~49 | 23 (developed only) |
| Emerging markets | ~10% | 0% |
| Distribution | Accumulating | Accumulating |
| Replication | Physical (sampling) | Physical (sampling) |
| Domicile | Ireland | Ireland |
| AUM (May 2026) | ~$15-16B | ~$80B |
| Inception | July 2019 | September 2009 |
| Securities lending | Yes (limited) | Yes |
How We Analyzed This
This comparison uses the Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF factsheet, the iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF factsheet, and corresponding FTSE Russell and MSCI index methodology documents as of April 2026. Holding overlap was estimated by matching top-200 constituents by ISIN and weight. Performance data was sourced from Vanguard and iShares published total-return numbers in EUR. Where I cite return percentages they refer to the rolling period stated and round to the nearest whole percentage.
Index Methodology Differences
The most important divergence is at the index level — neither Vanguard nor iShares chose these designs; they license what FTSE Russell and MSCI publish.
FTSE All-World (VWCE)
- Includes both developed and emerging markets.
- Approximately 49 countries.
- Captures large- and mid-cap stocks (~90-95% of investable global market cap).
- South Korea is classified as developed by FTSE.
- Poland: classified as developed since 2018 by FTSE (after upgrade).
MSCI World (EUNL)
- Includes developed markets only.
- 23 countries.
- Captures large- and mid-cap stocks within developed markets only.
- South Korea is classified as emerging by MSCI (which is why it does not appear in EUNL).
- Poland: classified as emerging by MSCI — also absent from EUNL.
This South Korea/Poland classification quirk explains some otherwise-confusing weight differences between the two funds. Investors who want full exposure to the world would pair EUNL with an EM ETF like EIMI (iShares Core MSCI EM IMI) — which itself includes Korea and Poland and overlaps awkwardly with FTSE if combined with VWCE.
Country Allocation Compared
| Country | VWCE weight | EUNL weight |
|---|---|---|
| United States | ~62% | ~70% |
| Japan | ~6% | ~6% |
| United Kingdom | ~3.5% | ~4% |
| France | ~2.5% | ~3% |
| Canada | ~3% | ~3% |
| Germany | ~2% | ~2.5% |
| Switzerland | ~2% | ~2.5% |
| China | ~3% | 0% |
| Taiwan | ~2% | 0% |
| India | ~2% | 0% |
| South Korea | ~1.2% | 0% |
| Australia | ~1.5% | ~2% |
| Other developed | ~3% | ~5% |
| Other emerging | ~1.3% | 0% |
The structural difference: EUNL's developed-only construction forces a higher US weight because the US is a larger share of the developed-market universe than of the global universe. If you believe US tech outperformance will continue, EUNL has a small structural tilt in your favour. If you believe EM revaluation is overdue, VWCE has a small tilt in yours.
Sector Weights
| Sector | VWCE | EUNL |
|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | ~24% | ~26% |
| Financials | ~16% | ~15% |
| Health Care | ~11% | ~12% |
| Consumer Discretionary | ~11% | ~11% |
| Industrials | ~10% | ~11% |
| Communication Services | ~8% | ~8% |
| Consumer Staples | ~6% | ~6% |
| Energy | ~4% | ~4% |
| Materials | ~4% | ~4% |
| Utilities | ~3% | ~2% |
| Real Estate | ~3% | ~2% |
The sector-level differences are small (≤2 percentage points). Both funds are essentially "global mega-cap technology heavy with everything else proportional."
Holdings Overlap
Looking at the top 200 holdings of each fund, approximately 88-90% by weight is identical. The same names dominate both:
- Apple
- Microsoft
- NVIDIA
- Amazon
- Alphabet (A & C)
- Meta Platforms
- Tesla
- Berkshire Hathaway
- JPMorgan Chase
- Eli Lilly
The remaining ~10-12% of VWCE that EUNL lacks consists of:
- TSMC (~1.5%) — Taiwan
- Tencent (~0.8%) — China
- Samsung (~0.7%) — Korea
- Reliance Industries (~0.4%) — India
- Alibaba, ICBC, HDFC Bank, Infosys, MercadoLibre, plus thousands of smaller EM names totalling the remaining EM weight.
For an investor who wants exposure to TSMC (the world's most important semiconductor manufacturer) and Tencent (one of the largest internet platforms), only VWCE offers it within a single fund.
Performance Comparison
Total return in EUR, approximate, since VWCE inception (July 2019 through April 2026):
| Period | VWCE total return (EUR) | EUNL total return (EUR) |
|---|---|---|
| Jul 2019 - Apr 2026 (full) | ~+85% | ~+92% |
| 2020 | +6% | +6% |
| 2021 | +28% | +31% |
| 2022 | -13% | -12% |
| 2023 | +18% | +20% |
| 2024 | +24% | +27% |
| 2025 | +9% | +10% |
EUNL has marginally outperformed by roughly 0.5-1.0 percentage points per year over this window — almost entirely because emerging markets (China especially) underperformed. From a long-term perspective, this is unlikely to repeat indefinitely. Over the 2000-2010 period, EM dramatically outperformed developed markets and the comparison would have been reversed.
Source: Vanguard total return tables and iShares performance history.
Cost Comparison
The 0.02% TER gap (0.22% vs 0.20%) translates to €2 per year per €10,000 invested. Over 30 years on a €100,000 portfolio compounding at 7%, that gap is a few hundred euros — economically trivial.
What matters more in practice:
- EUNL has higher AUM (~$80B vs VWCE's ~$15-16B), giving slightly tighter bid-ask spreads.
- VWCE has more emerging market exposure, which historically has had higher tracking gaps in physical-replication ETFs.
- Both funds engage in some securities lending; the income from lending typically offsets 0.02-0.05% of TER for each.
Tax Treatment — Identical Mechanics
Both funds are:
- Irish-domiciled
- Accumulating UCITS
- Eligible for Polish IKE/IKZE/OIPE
- Subject to Vorabpauschale in Germany
- Held in CTO only (not PEA-eligible) in France
- Taxed at 26% in Italy
- Subject to 41% deemed disposal in Ireland
For tax purposes, choosing VWCE vs EUNL has no implications — both are treated identically by every EU tax authority. See our companion VWCE tax treatment guide.
Building a Two-ETF Alternative
Some investors prefer to control EM allocation explicitly. A common structure:
- ~85-88% EUNL (developed markets)
- ~12-15% EIMI (iShares Core MSCI EM IMI, TER 0.18%)
This produces approximately the same global market-cap weighting as VWCE while allowing the investor to:
- Overweight or underweight EM at will (tactical)
- Use the higher-AUM EUNL for the bulk of the position
- Slightly reduce blended TER (~0.20% vs 0.22%)
The trade-off is operational complexity: two purchases, two rebalancings, two tax lots to track. From a long-term perspective, the difference for most investors is negligible.
Why an Investor Might Pick VWCE
- Single fund convenience — buy once, never rebalance.
- Built-in EM exposure for those who consider EM mean-reversion likely.
- Includes South Korea (FTSE classifies as DM, MSCI does not).
- Provider preference for Vanguard's investor-owned mutual structure.
- Slightly more diversified by holding count (~3,700 vs ~1,500).
Why an Investor Might Pick EUNL
- Larger AUM — better trading liquidity, lower bid-ask.
- Slightly lower TER (0.20% vs 0.22%).
- Higher US tilt for those who consider it justified.
- Pairing flexibility with EIMI for explicit EM control.
- Longer track record (2009 inception vs 2019 for VWCE).
Common Misconceptions
"VWCE is more diversified because it has more stocks." True by count, but the additional ~2,200 holdings represent only ~10% of weight. By the time you weight by market cap, both funds are dominated by the same ~50 mega-caps.
"EUNL is the same as IWDA." Yes — same fund, different exchange listings. IWDA on LSE, EUNL on Xetra, SWDA also on LSE. Identical NAV, TER, and holdings.
"VWCE includes more US tech, so it'll outperform." EUNL actually has a slightly higher US weight (~70% vs ~62%) and similar tech weighting. Recent outperformance has gone to EUNL, not VWCE.
"I should hold both." Holding both creates ~88-90% overlap, which adds operational complexity for very limited diversification benefit. Pick one or use EUNL+EIMI for explicit control.
FAQ
Is VWCE better than EUNL? Neither is "better" — they target different universes. VWCE includes emerging markets in a single fund; EUNL covers developed markets only with a slightly lower TER and higher AUM. Some investors consider single-fund simplicity decisive; others value the explicit control of EUNL+EIMI.
Does EUNL include China and India? No. EUNL tracks MSCI World, which excludes emerging markets. China, India, Taiwan, Korea, Brazil, and similar markets are absent. Investors wanting EM through iShares typically pair EUNL with EIMI.
Why does EUNL have more US weight than VWCE? Because EUNL's universe is developed markets only, where the US is a larger share. VWCE includes emerging markets, which dilutes the US weight slightly.
Are VWCE and EUNL taxed differently? No. Both are Irish-domiciled accumulating UCITS ETFs. Tax mechanics in Poland, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Ireland are identical for both.
Which has lower tracking error? EUNL historically has marginally lower tracking error due to the developed-markets-only universe being easier to replicate. VWCE's emerging-market sleeve introduces a slightly larger tracking gap. See our dedicated VWCE tracking error analysis.
Related Articles
Want full control over your finances?
Try Freenance for free