Vanguard's VOO seems to be the default ETF 'hold' and with good reason: it's performance has been exceptionally solid. But, when you look at Blackrock's Australian-founded, internationally-invested ETF IWLD, its upside in every respect seems to be far superior (except for management fees, which are more than offset by total cumulative returns.
IWLD has generally tracked VOO very closely. Here are the differences:
* Over 5 years, IWLD has, excluding dividends, returned 12.8% (higher), while VOO has returned \~12.6% (lower)
* Over 5 years, IWLD has paid annual dividends of 1.20% - 1.21% (higher), while VOO has paid 1.10% - 1.20% (lower)
* IWLD is ESG screened, so it cuts out the most harmful stocks, while VOO has no screening other than the S&P (it hold's Chevron (fossil fuels) Phillip Morris (tobacco) etc.
* VOO's fees are lower (0.03) vs IWLD's (0.2)
* IWLD is more diversified, with more mid-sized market caps and an international focus well beyond the US, while VOO is very US, large-cap and tech-stock-heavy
* IWLD is less US currency exposed, whereas IWLD (being internationally invested and Australian-based) has a lower currency exposure to a country whose fiscal policy agenda is now very, very unstable
When you look at the two ETFs, IWLD has grown more, returns more in dividends, costs more in fees, is more sustainable, is more diversified and is less currency exposed. On almost every metric, and in aggregate, it is a better fund.
Why don't we see IWLD being promoted more for those whose brokers allow play in international markets?