ETFs · Published August 26, 2026

ETF Fees Compound Too: Comparing Two World ETFs

By Slowio

Fund fees are quoted in numbers small enough to ignore — 0.07%, 0.32% — and that framing is exactly why they are ignored. A fee is charged on the whole balance every year forever, which means it compounds with the same arithmetic that grows the balance itself. Over thirty years, a fraction of a percent is not a rounding error.

The cleanest way to see it is two ETFs tracking nearly the same world index at very different expense ratios. Below, the comparison drawn out: same exposure, several times the yearly cost, and the widening gap when the fee drag is extended over a long horizon.

Charts and figures are computed from Slowio’s data snapshot as of 2026-08-26 and are refreshed when the article is next updated.
Feature spotlight · ETF comparison

Two world ETFs, 4.6× the yearly cost

Both of these funds hold the whole world in one ETF — developed and emerging markets, thousands of companies, the same Morningstar category (Global Large-Stock Blend). The ETF-Compare page puts them side by side:

ACWI.US · iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
Global Large-Stock Blend
0.32%
TER per year
$33.1B
Fund size
21.5%
Return 3y ann.
13.0%
Volatility 1y
1.06
Sharpe 3y
4/5
Morningstar
VT.US · Vanguard Total World Stock Index
Global Large-Stock Blend
0.07%
TER per year
$81.2B
Fund size
21.3%
Return 3y ann.
13.0%
Volatility 1y
1.03
Sharpe 3y
4/5
Morningstar
0.32% vs 0.07% — the first fund charges 4.6× the yearly fee of the second, while their 3-year returns on this snapshot sit 0.22 points apart. A 0.25-point cost gap is small in any single year and repeats in every one of them — exactly the kind of difference a side-by-side view surfaces before the choice is made.

Compounded, that sentence becomes a chart. On the Cost tab’s own formula — the fee eating at a static $10,000, no market return assumed — 0.32% a year adds up to $915 of cumulative cost over 30 years, against $208 at 0.07% — a $708 gap on the same exposure:

Line chart: cumulative fee cost on a 10,000 dollar position over 30 years, ACWI.US versus VT.US
TER only, continuously compounded (0.32% vs 0.07%); the app’s Cost tab additionally estimates trading spreads. Static capital, no market return.

Growth raises the stakes. Let the same $10,000 compound at a flat, hypothetical 5% a year — identical for both funds, so the only difference is each fund’s fee — and after 30 years the position ends at $43,886 in the cheaper fund versus $40,715 in the pricier one. The same 0.25-point fee difference now costs $3,171 — 4.5× the no-growth gap, because the fee also eats the growth it would have compounded. Put differently: the higher fee consumes 9.2% of the 30-year outcome, the lower one 2.1%:

Line chart: value of a 10,000 dollar position compounding at a hypothetical 5 percent for 30 years net of each fund's fee, ACWI.US versus VT.US, shaded band showing the fee gap
Flat hypothetical 5% yearly growth, continuously compounded, gross of fees and identical for both funds; the curves differ only by TER, and the shaded band is the fee gap. An educational illustration, not a forecast — actual returns vary and are not guaranteed.
Radar chart comparing ACWI.US and VT.US on cost, performance, size, risk-adjusted return, income and quality
The comparison radar from the ETF-Compare page — each axis is a 0–100 score against the full ETF universe Slowio follows. The widest gap between the two is Cost.

The same page works for any two or three ETFs Slowio follows — TER, size, returns, volatility and ratings in one table, best and worst highlighted.

Compare any two ETFs →

Slowio is an educational research tool, not financial advice. Figures are computed from Slowio’s data snapshot at build time and may not reflect the latest market data — nothing in this email is a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Do your own research.

Create a free Slowio account →

Run the same analysis on any of the 9,000+ companies Slowio follows — free, no card required.