βš”οΈ Head to head

VGS vs IACT: Which ETF Is Better?

A side-by-side comparison of fees, size, returns and holdings, using data to 30 September 2026.

VGS comes out ahead on 4 of 7 measures. Which matters most depends on you.

The short answer

πŸ’ΈLower feeVGS wins
VGS
0.18%
IACT
0.45%

Worth about $18,467 on $100,000 over 20 years.

🏦Bigger fundVGS wins
VGS
$18.7bn
IACT
$520m

Bigger funds usually trade more cheaply and are less likely to close.

πŸ“ˆ1-year returnIACT wins
VGS
+10.1%
IACT
+11.3%
πŸ“Š3-year returnToo close to call
VGS
+17.9% a yr
IACT
–
🏁5-year returnToo close to call
VGS
+11.8% a yr
IACT
–
βš–οΈCheaper to tradeVGS wins
VGS
0.02%
IACT
0.10%

A tighter gap between the buy and sell price.

VGS vs IACT side by side

VGS leads on 4, IACT on 3VGSVanguard MSCI Index International Shares ETFIACTiShares U.S. Factor Rotation Active ETF
The basics
Index trackedMSCI World ex Australia IndexSee the PDS
Fund managerVanguardiShares
Asset classInternational sharesInternational shares
ListedNov 2014Jun 2025
Cost and size
MERyearly fee, lower is better0.18%βœ“0.45%
AUMfund size$18.7bnβœ“$520m
Net flows (Sep)new money in, last month$532mβœ“$177m
Bid/ask spreadtrading cost, lower is better0.02%βœ“0.10%
Total returns
1 month+1.9%+2.9%βœ“
1 year+10.1%+11.3%βœ“
3 years p.a.+17.9%–
5 years p.a.+11.8%–
$10,000 invested
1 year ago$11,007$11,130βœ“
5 years ago$17,457–

βœ“ marks the better figure on each measure. Returns include distributions, to 30 September 2026.

VGS vs IACT price chart

Both ETFs on one chart as % change. Use the 1D to All buttons to change the period. Price only, so it leaves out distributions Β· TradingView

πŸ“ˆ Growth

What $10,000 invested is worth now

Only VGS has a 5 years record: $10,000 then is worth $17,457 today.

VGSIACT$10,000 invested
$0k$5k$10k$15k$20k$11.0k$11.1k1 year agoIACT +$123$16.4ktoo new3 years ago$17.5ktoo new5 years ago

Total returns to 30 September 2026, with distributions reinvested, before tax and brokerage. The price chart above leaves out distributions, so it can look worse. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.

πŸ’Έ Cost

What the fees cost you

VGS's lower fee leaves about $18,467 more in your pocket over 20 years.

VGS charges 0.18% a yearIACT charges 0.45% a year
🧾 Fees paid on $100,000Saving
5 years
VGS
βˆ’$1,176
IACT
βˆ’$2,925
You keep$1,749more with VGS
10 years
VGS
βˆ’$3,284
IACT
βˆ’$8,118
You keep$4,834more with VGS
20 years
VGS
βˆ’$12,814
IACT
βˆ’$31,281
You keep$18,467more with VGS

Total fees paid on a $100,000 investment, assuming a 7% a year return before fees. Illustration only: it ignores tax, brokerage and differences in returns.

Free PDF report

Get the full VGS vs IACT report

  • Every holding of each ETF: the top 50 companies, with sectors and countries
  • Exactly which companies they share, and how much of each
  • Fees in dollars over 10, 20 and 30 years
  • Every metric side by side, including the index each tracks
  • β˜… FREE BONUSIs now a good time to invest? The Market Health-O-Meter
⬇ Get the free report
Joshua Stega
etfadviserExchange traded fund specialist adviser Β· 20 years’ experience
Keep in touch with the marketsWeekly ETF research, the Market Health-O-Meter and our model portfolio.Try it free for 30 days β†’

FAQs

Which is better, VGS or IACT?

It depends on what you need. On our numbers VGS wins on 4 measures and IACT on 3. VGS is cheaper, with a management fee of 0.18% vs 0.45%. On $100,000 over 20 years that difference is worth about $18,467. VGS is the larger fund at $18.7bn vs $520m. IACT has the better 1-year return: +11.3% vs +10.1%.

Which is cheaper, VGS or IACT?

VGS charges 0.18% a year and IACT charges 0.45% a year.

Can I hold both VGS and IACT?

You can, but check how much they overlap. VGS is a international shares fund and IACT is a international shares fund.

More comparisons

VGS vs IVVVGS vs BGBLVGS vs VTSVGS vs VGADVGS vs VEUVGS vs IWLDVGS vs IOOVGS vs QUALVAS vs VGSVGS vs DHHFVGS vs QHALVGS vs DGCEVGS vs V1ACVGS vs TLRAVGS vs FANGVGS vs HACK

Add more ETFs to this comparison β†’

General information only, not a recommendation. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.