Portfolio X-Ray · Research

How global is your global ETF?

By Rogha ETF · 12 October 2026

Published 12 October 2026 · Research

A global equity ETF can hold thousands of investments across dozens of countries. But how evenly is your money spread?

We examined five established global equity ETFs covering three approaches: developed markets; developed and emerging markets; and developed and emerging markets with small companies included. In this five-fund sample, US equities accounted for roughly 62–74% of equity exposure. The ten largest companies represented approximately 24–30%.

Those ranges describe our selected sample. They are not estimates for every global ETF, and the sample is not a verified ranking of the five most popular funds.

A dated illustration, not a same-day ranking. Holdings dates range from 31 August to 9 October 2026. All percentages use equity exposure normalised to 100%, excluding cash and derivatives. Fund identities, dates and official sources are listed in the methodology note at the end of this article.

Global does not mean evenly spread

The two developed-market funds placed around three quarters of their equity exposure in the United States. The three funds including emerging markets had US weights of roughly 62–65% in their respective snapshots.

These portfolios generally weight companies by their market value, subject to their index rules. Large markets and large businesses therefore receive more weight. A fund can span the world while remaining heavily concentrated in its largest stock market.

What does broader coverage add?

A developed-market portfolio leaves out markets included in an all-country approach. Adding emerging markets extends the investment universe. Including small companies broadens it further.

Yet the largest holdings remain strikingly familiar. Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Broadcom, Meta, Micron and Tesla appeared among the ten largest companies in all five samples. Broader coverage changes their weights and adds other investments, while retaining a substantial common core.

Thousands of holdings can still carry concentrated weights

In the two all-country samples dated 9 October, the ten largest companies accounted for 26.6% of equity exposure in the large- and mid-cap approach, compared with 23.7% in the approach also including small caps.

This shows how a broader portfolio can spread its weight further. It does not establish that small caps alone explain the difference: portfolio sampling and implementation also differ. Many additional holdings carry small individual weights, so the headline number of positions tells only part of the story.

Country labels have limits

A company assigned to the United States can earn revenue around the world. A company assigned elsewhere can depend heavily on US customers. Our country figures describe assigned equity markets, using the classification method explained in the supporting note. They do not measure where companies earn their revenue.

Nor do more countries or more holdings automatically establish lower risk. This study measures portfolio composition. It does not compare historical returns, correlations or future volatility.

Look at the weights behind the label

“Global” is a useful starting point. The next questions are which markets are included, whether small companies are represented, and how much weight sits in the largest countries and businesses.

For these five funds, broad geographical reach coexisted with substantial US exposure and a familiar group of dominant companies. The holdings make that concentration visible.

Read the methodology note, fund identities and official sources.