Core Insights - The comparison highlights the differences between the SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) and the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM), focusing on cost, risk, and sector exposure for investors [1] Cost & Size - NZAC has a lower expense ratio of 0.12% compared to EEM's 0.72% - As of January 25, 2026, NZAC reported a 1-year return of 16%, while EEM had a significantly higher return of 38.76% - Dividend yield for NZAC is 1.9%, slightly lower than EEM's 2.06% - NZAC has a beta of 1.54, indicating higher volatility compared to EEM's beta of 0.63 - Assets Under Management (AUM) for NZAC is $181.27 million, while EEM has a much larger AUM of $25.1 billion [2][3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, NZAC experienced a maximum drawdown of 28.29%, which is less severe than EEM's 39.82% - An investment of $1,000 in NZAC would have grown to $1,466 over five years, compared to $1,050 for EEM [4] Holdings Overview - EEM focuses on emerging markets with 1,241 stocks, heavily weighted towards the tech sector, including major positions in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, ASML Holding, and Samsung [5] - NZAC targets companies that meet climate-aligned criteria, holding 729 stocks, primarily in the technology sector, with top positions in Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [6] Investor Implications - A significant difference between the two ETFs is their international exposure; NZAC's top holdings are predominantly U.S. companies, while EEM's top 10 holdings are all non-U.S. stocks, which may introduce more volatility [7][9] - NZAC restricts its holdings to eco-friendly companies, while EEM offers broader diversification in emerging markets with a slightly higher dividend yield [8]

Core Insights - The article compares two global equity ETFs: SPDR Portfolio Developed World ex-US ETF (SPDW) and SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC), highlighting their differing investment strategies and target audiences [2][3] Cost and Size Comparison - NZAC has an expense ratio of 0.12% and a 1-year return of 15.4%, while SPDW has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% and a higher 1-year return of 31.3% [4] - SPDW also offers a higher dividend yield of 3.3% compared to NZAC's 1.9%, with SPDW's assets under management (AUM) at $33.4 billion versus NZAC's $180 million [4] Performance and Risk Analysis - Over a 5-year period, NZAC experienced a maximum drawdown of -28.29%, while SPDW had a slightly deeper drawdown of -30.20% [5] - The growth of a $1,000 investment over 5 years would yield $1,501 for NZAC and $1,321 for SPDW, indicating that NZAC has outperformed in terms of growth [5] Portfolio Composition - SPDW focuses on developed international equities outside the U.S., with major sectors including financial services (23%), industrials (19%), and technology (11%), featuring 2,390 holdings [6] - NZAC, on the other hand, emphasizes a climate-focused ESG mandate with a significant technology allocation of 35%, including major companies like Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [7] Investment Implications - SPDW is positioned as a more cost-effective option with a higher yield and stronger recent returns, while NZAC appeals to investors prioritizing technology and ESG criteria [9] - Both ETFs provide access to international stocks but define "international" differently, with SPDW focusing on developed markets excluding the U.S. and NZAC including American tech giants while adhering to climate criteria [10]

Core Insights - The SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) is characterized by its lower cost and technology focus, while the iShares MSCI ACWI ex US ETF (ACWX) provides a higher yield, greater international diversification, and significantly more assets under management [1][2] Cost and Size Comparison - NZAC has an expense ratio of 0.12% compared to ACWX's 0.32%, making NZAC more cost-effective [3][4] - As of January 9, 2026, NZAC has a 1-year return of 22.0% and a dividend yield of 1.9%, while ACWX has a 1-year return of 34.2% and a dividend yield of 2.7% [3][4] - NZAC has assets under management (AUM) of $182.0 million, whereas ACWX has AUM of $8.4 billion [3][12] Performance and Risk Comparison - Over a five-year period, NZAC experienced a maximum drawdown of -28.29%, while ACWX had a maximum drawdown of -30.06% [5] - An investment of $1,000 in NZAC would have grown to $1,501 over five years, compared to $1,267 for ACWX [5] Sector Exposure - ACWX holds approximately 1,700 stocks, with major sector allocations in financial services (25%), technology (15%), and industrials (15%) [7] - NZAC has a heavier tilt towards technology at 35% and includes major U.S. companies like Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [8][11] Investment Focus - NZAC integrates climate-focused screening and includes U.S. stocks, aligning with the Paris Climate Agreement by excluding fossil fuels and controversial weapons [10][11] - ACWX focuses solely on non-U.S. companies, providing pure international exposure without climate or ESG considerations [10][12] Strategic Considerations - Investors must decide between NZAC's climate alignment and ACWX's dedicated international allocation, depending on their portfolio strategy [10][13]

Core Insights - The iShares MSCI World ETF (URTH) focuses on developed markets, while the SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) aligns with the Paris Agreement to mitigate climate change [2] Cost & Size Comparison - URTH has an expense ratio of 0.24% and AUM of $6.57 billion, while NZAC has a lower expense ratio of 0.12% and AUM of $178.6 million [3][4] - The 1-year return for URTH is 19.79% compared to NZAC's 18.34%, and the dividend yield for URTH is 1.46% versus NZAC's 1.87% [3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over five years, URTH has a max drawdown of -26.06% and a growth of $1,000 to $1,645, while NZAC has a max drawdown of -28.29% and a growth of $1,000 to $1,500 [5] Portfolio Composition - NZAC targets climate-aligned companies with 729 stocks, primarily in technology (32%), financial services (16%), and industrials (10%), with top holdings including Nvidia (5.31%), Apple (4.70%), and Microsoft (4.06%) [6] - URTH holds 1,343 stocks with a similar sector allocation but does not use ESG screens, providing broader exposure to developed markets [7][8] Investment Implications - Both ETFs have overlapping top holdings, particularly in technology, making it difficult to determine a superior option; however, URTH does not focus on sustainability as NZAC does [9]

Core Viewpoint - The SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) and SPDR Portfolio MSCI Global Stock Market ETF (SPGM) provide global equity exposure but cater to different investor priorities, with NZAC focusing on climate-related ESG screening and SPGM offering broad, low-cost access to the global stock market [2][3]. Cost and Size Comparison - NZAC has an expense ratio of 0.12% while SPGM has a lower expense ratio of 0.09% [4][5]. - As of the latest data, NZAC has assets under management (AUM) of $177.8 million, whereas SPGM has a significantly larger AUM of $1.3 billion [4][5]. Performance Metrics - The one-year return for NZAC is 13.51%, while SPGM has a higher return of 16.36% [4][15]. - Over five years, the maximum drawdown for NZAC is -18.01%, compared to -23.68% for SPGM [8]. Holdings and Sector Exposure - SPGM includes approximately 2,890 holdings with a sector distribution of 26% technology, 17% financial services, and 12% industrials, featuring top positions in Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [9]. - NZAC has 687 holdings with a similar sector distribution: 31% technology, 17% financial services, and 11% industrials, also featuring Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft as top holdings [10][14]. Investment Strategy - SPGM serves as a broad-market tracker without thematic tilts, appealing to investors seeking comprehensive market exposure [13]. - NZAC targets companies that meet environmental benchmarks aligned with the Paris Agreement, appealing to investors focused on sustainability and societal impact [14][16].

Core Insights - The SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) focuses on climate-friendly stocks, while the iShares MSCI World ETF (URTH) has a broader and more diversified strategy [1][8] Cost Comparison - NZAC has a lower expense ratio of 0.12% compared to URTH's 0.24%, making it more affordable for investors [3] - As of November 28, 2025, URTH has a 1-year return of 16.18%, while NZAC has a return of 13.16% [3] - Both funds offer nearly identical dividend yields, with NZAC at 1.35% and URTH at 1.30% [3] - URTH has significantly larger assets under management (AUM) at $6.05 billion compared to NZAC's $178.16 million [3] Performance & Risk Analysis - Over a 5-year period, URTH experienced a maximum drawdown of -26.04%, while NZAC had a slightly higher drawdown of -27.65% [4] - An investment of $1,000 in URTH would grow to $1,695 over 5 years, compared to $1,529 for NZAC [4] Fund Composition - NZAC tracks a climate-aligned index, holding 687 stocks with a sector tilt of 31% in technology, 17% in financial services, and 11% in industrials [5] - URTH holds 1,322 stocks, with 27% in technology, 16% in financial services, and 11% in industrials, providing broader market coverage [6] Investment Focus - NZAC is designed for environmentally focused investors, incorporating guidelines from the Taskforce on Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) [9] - URTH is more focused on global stocks from developed markets, offering greater diversification but less emphasis on environmental factors [10][12]