One World ETF: concentrated in the US, led by big tech
- iShares MSCI World Swap PEA UCITS ETFWorld equities · WPEAIE0002XZSHO1
Data and calculation
Angular width shows the holding’s weight. Tiles rise outward for a gain and inward for a loss, on the same scale. The hairline marks zero; very small moves keep a minimum visible band. Returns are the checker’s annualised one-year replay in nominal EUR, using adjusted prices and the engine’s weekly grid. Portfolio weights are held constant; these are not the returns of an investor’s account. Fund costs are embedded, tax and inflation are excluded. Past returns do not predict future returns.
- .
- Fees
- A
- Long-term assumptions
- B
- Historical efficiency
- C
- Crises
- D
- Diversification
- C
This is an aggressive, all-equity portfolio whose main bet is on US companies, with large technology businesses carrying substantial weight. A single World ETF keeps costs and administration low. It spreads the risk of an individual company failing, but leaves the portfolio exposed to a shared equity-market decline, with no separate source of crash protection.
This portfolio invests 100 % in WPEA, which tracks MSCI World. On 30 September 2026, US companies account for 72.94% of the index and information technology for 31.78%. These are overlapping country and sector views, not weights to add together. Nvidia alone represents 5.81%. [1]
The index holds 1,249 companies across 23 developed markets. That breadth is useful, but company count overstates the spread of economic risks: the largest US businesses have far more influence on the result than the many smaller holdings. The portfolio’s strength is cheap, simple access to equities. Its weakness is relying on that same source of returns through every market environment. [1]
Fees: simplicity works in the portfolio’s favour
A single index fund delivers broad equity exposure for 0.2% per year, earning A for recurring costs. This is at the upper edge of the best fee band: the low charge leaves more of the market return with the investor, without depending on a manager outperforming. It says nothing about the size of the equity losses the investor must bear.
Total costs also depend on trade execution and any account charges. The quality of index tracking matters alongside a small difference in the advertised fee. Repeatedly switching ETFs for theoretical savings can add dealing costs and complexity without changing the economic risk.
Long-term returns: a heavy reliance on US technology
The portfolio’s main growth exposure is US large-cap equities, especially technology. US companies account for 72.94% of the index and information technology for 31.78%, with Nvidia, Apple and Microsoft the largest positions. Companies elsewhere have much less influence on the portfolio’s returns. [1]
Those companies give the portfolio substantial exposure to technology spending and expectations for future profit growth. Buying the whole index does not remove that dependence. A slowdown in those profits or a fall in the valuations investors accept would affect several major holdings together. The smaller positions have less weight to offset that setback.
The long-term grade of B comes from the expected compound-growth gap of -0.82 percentage points per year to the model’s growth-optimal mix. World supplies equity growth, but holds no other asset class that could improve compounding by reducing fluctuations. The model reference can combine more exposures and take a different level of risk. This grade evaluates asset-class assumptions; it does not separately value Nvidia or forecast the next technology cycle.
Crises: many companies can fall at the same time
The model transmits most of the US-equity shock to this all-equity holding, producing a decline of -36.41% and a D grade. Companies in different developed markets remain exposed to a common fall in earnings expectations and valuations. The portfolio spreads individual-company risk but has no position designed to offset that market-wide loss.
Covid-19 · 2020
Historical reconstructionData and method
The chart replays today’s portfolio weights through the checker’s weekly adjusted-price history in nominal EUR. Each line starts at 100 on the same date. The S&P 500 path is the checker’s US-equity total-return ETF proxy, including distributions. The portfolio is rebalanced to constant weights on the engine’s weekly grid. It is not an investor’s account history. Fund costs are embedded; tax, inflation and trading costs are excluded. Weekly observations can miss a deeper daily or intraday loss. Recovery is the first weekly observation back at the peak preceding the largest decline, within the displayed window.
The crisis grade uses the separate modelled 40% US-equity shock. This historical replay does not determine or change that grade, and it is not a forecast.
- This portfolio
- Back to the previous peak: 8 January 2021
- S&P 500
- Back to the previous peak: 8 January 2021
For the funds below, the checker substitutes asset-class history before the fund’s own history begins. That part of the line is a reconstruction, not an observed ETF return.
| Fund | Fund history starts |
|---|---|
| iShares MSCI World Swap PEA UCITS ETF | 2 April 2024 |
Only complete episodes in the captured history, with an S&P 500 drawdown of at least 10%, are eligible. The selected episode has the highest portfolio drawdown relative to the S&P 500 drawdown. This highlights where the portfolio offered the least cushioning among the episodes tested; it is not necessarily its largest absolute loss or the worst crisis since 1998. The table lists every eligible comparison.
| Crisis replay | This portfolio | S&P 500 |
|---|---|---|
| Equity sell-off | -13% | -13.2% |
| Covid-19 | -29.1% | -28.7% |
| The rate reset | -16% | -16.7% |
| Tariff sell-off | -18.6% | -20.6% |
| Replay date | This portfolio | S&P 500 |
|---|---|---|
| 100 | 100 | |
| 101.3 | 101.8 | |
| 102.8 | 103.4 | |
| 103.1 | 103.8 | |
| 100 | 101 | |
| 104.1 | 105.3 | |
| 106.1 | 107.8 | |
| 105 | 106.6 | |
| 91.4 | 91.8 | |
| 89.6 | 90.3 | |
| 77.2 | 79.4 | |
| 75.2 | 76.9 | |
| 78.5 | 79.8 | |
| 78.4 | 80.1 | |
| 85.8 | 88.6 | |
| 87.2 | 90.5 | |
| 86.6 | 89.8 | |
| 89.1 | 92.3 | |
| 90.2 | 93.3 | |
| 87.9 | 90.9 | |
| 90.3 | 93.7 | |
| 91.3 | 94.2 | |
| 96.1 | 98.6 | |
| 91.6 | 93.9 | |
| 94.9 | 97.4 | |
| 92.1 | 94 | |
| 94.4 | 96.7 | |
| 94.9 | 97.3 | |
| 95.8 | 98.1 | |
| 94.2 | 96.4 | |
| 92.7 | 95.5 | |
| 95.5 | 98.9 | |
| 96.5 | 99.5 | |
| 96.9 | 100.2 | |
| 98.5 | 102.4 | |
| 96.3 | 99.9 | |
| 96 | 98.8 | |
| 95.8 | 98.1 | |
| 95.3 | 98.1 | |
| 96.8 | 99.9 | |
| 99.1 | 102.5 | |
| 100.2 | 104.4 | |
| 98.2 | 101.9 | |
| 94.4 | 97.9 | |
| 99.7 | 103.2 | |
| 102.3 | 105.3 | |
| 103.2 | 105.6 | |
| 104.4 | 106.5 | |
| 104.4 | 106.5 | |
| 103.6 | 105.3 | |
| 104.6 | 105.9 | |
| 104.9 | 106.3 | |
| 105.1 | 106.7 | |
| 107.8 | 109 | |
| 108.1 | 109.4 | |
| 108.8 | 110.5 | |
| 105.8 | 107.8 | |
| 111 | 113.3 | |
| 111.7 | 113.5 | |
| 111.8 | 113.6 | |
| 109 | 111.5 | |
| 108.2 | 110.4 | |
| 112.9 | 115.4 | |
| 113.4 | 115.7 | |
| 114.5 | 117.4 | |
| 116.3 | 119.7 | |
| 117.8 | 121.4 | |
| 119 | 122.6 | |
| 117.9 | 121.7 | |
| 118.2 | 122.3 | |
| 118.7 | 122.6 | |
| 117.1 | 120.8 | |
| 117.3 | 120.5 | |
| 118.6 | 121.7 | |
| 119.2 | 122.2 | |
| 120.4 | 123.4 | |
| 120.9 | 124.2 | |
| 122.7 | 126.3 |
D covers losses close to the US-stock reference; F is reserved for a larger loss than that reference. The result therefore describes weak crash resilience, even though it avoids the lowest letter. Long-term class sensitivities set this scenario. They do not bound the possible loss or model every technology-specific shock.
The same market decline can have different consequences depending on spending needs and the share of wealth invested here. Capital available elsewhere can reduce the need to sell during a downturn. This portfolio alone does not describe that wider financial position.
Diversification: many companies, fewer independent drivers
On 30 September 2026, the US represents 72.94% of MSCI World and information technology 31.78%. The index weights companies by market value, so the largest businesses naturally take more space. It does not aim for equal country or sector weights. [1]
Nvidia, Apple and Microsoft are its three largest positions. Their activities differ, but they share sensitivity to technology spending, growth expectations and the price investors will pay for future earnings. A long list of holdings does not make those risks independent. [1]
The grade of C includes credit for owning a broad company and sector base. The engine applies its broad-index allowance even though it identifies 1 growth source and retains no expected growth above cash when developed-market equities stop contributing. Company-level breadth and independent return drivers are separate benefits. World provides the former; another US or technology fund would do little to add the latter.
Points to consider
Low fees pull the overall grade up, while the near-market shock loss pulls it down. The resulting C combines several measures; it cannot stand in for a crash-resilience assessment. The open question is how that simple equity exposure fits alongside loss tolerance, other sources of returns and any crash protection elsewhere in the investor’s finances.
Capacity to remain invested
What would the simulated -36.41% loss mean across the investor’s wider wealth and spending plans? The ability to remain invested through a recovery and the cost and limits of explicit crash protection are separate parts of that question. The scenario is not a maximum loss.
Independent return drivers
Which economic drivers could provide returns when developed-market equities struggle? Long-term correlations, behaviour during equity stress and costs help distinguish an independent source from another version of the same equity exposure.
US and technology overlap
World already carries 72.94% US exposure and 31.78% in information technology. Would another US or technology fund broaden the sources of returns, or increase exposure to companies already held? Holdings across other accounts also affect that assessment. [1]
Other portfolios
Method and limitations
Calculated by copio on 23 October 2026, using engine portfolio-score-v10. The active forward-looking assumptions are labelled “Copio CMA”, without a vintage in the capture. Prices, holdings and assumptions may refer to different dates. Results describe an illustrative allocation without personal contributions or individual tax. No holding is excluded from the historical comparison; 74.52% of the history is filled with asset-class series. WPEA’s economic composition is read through a physical fund tracking the same index, rather than through its legal replication basket.
Estimated decline under a shock of -40% to US equities. Historical returns are annualised in euros, as calculated by the portfolio checker.
How copio analyses portfolios ↗Sources
- MSCI World Index factsheet ↗Reference date:
Country, sector and company weights in the index. These describe economic exposure, not the legal holdings of a synthetic ETF.