By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
Despite a strong 2026 performance, IXUS's long-term underperformance and structural risks, such as USD strength and geopolitical beta, make a compelling case for caution.
Risk: USD strength from Fed policy divergence and potential regulatory risks in China
Opportunity: Potential dividend yield advantage and diversification benefits
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Everywhere you look, you can find people recommending investing in the S&P 500 via low-fee index funds such as the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT: VOO). It's not the only solid investment you might make, though.
You might also want to look into the iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF (NASDAQ: IXUS) -- which has actually been delivering a superior performance so far in 2026.
Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now, when you join Stock Advisor. See the stocks »
The iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF is an exchange-traded fund (ETF) -- a fund that trades like a stock, making it easy to invest in via any good brokerage.
It's also an index fund. Index funds are a great investment option for most people, often with very low fees. This ETF has an expense ratio of 0.07%, meaning it will charge you $7 annually for every $10,000 invested in the fund. It tracks the MSCI ACWI ex USA Investable Market index, which is focused on small-, mid-, and large-cap stocks from international emerging and developed markets. The ETF recently held about 4,300 stocks, with very little turnover.
The table below shows how the ETF has performed lately. I'm including the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF's performance as well for comparison.
| Fund | Year to date | 3-Year Avg. Annual Return | 5-Year Avg. Annual Return | 10-Year Avg. Annual Return | |---|---|---|---|---| | iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF | 13.46% | 18.89% | 8.85% | 9.88% | | Vanguard S&P 500 ETF | 10.81% | 20.94% | 13.17% | 15.26% |
As you can see, the international ETF has outperformed the S&P 500 year to date. You'll also see that it has lagged the S&P 500 over many other periods. It's actually kind of hard to outperform the S&P 500 in recent years, as about 39% of its value is in huge, powerful growers such as Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon.
It's generally a good idea not to base investments on past performance. The iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF may well outperform the S&P 500 in many years to come. Here are some reasons to consider it for your portfolio.
For starters, it's focused on countries outside America. Many of us have much of our assets invested domestically, so diversifying internationally can be a good idea, potentially protecting your assets to some degree during a major U.S. stock market crash.
Here are the iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF's recent top holdings:
| Stock | Weight in ETF | |---|---| | | 4.37% | | | 2.12% | | | 1.86% | | | 1.57% | | | 0.85% | | | 0.78% | | | 0.69% | | | 0.68% | | | 0.68% | | | 0.68% |
These are the big, heavy hitters of Asia, Europe (and Canada)! They, and the rest of the ETF's holdings, together offer a dividend yield of 2.9%, vs. the S&P 500's 1.1%. That alone is a big difference worth appreciating.
Give this ETF -- or other international ETFs -- some consideration, as they may serve you and your portfolio well.
Before you buy stock in iShares Trust - iShares Core Msci Total International Stock ETF, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and iShares Trust - iShares Core Msci Total International Stock ETF wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $395,679! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,294,805!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 929% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 211% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of July 13, 2026. *
HSBC Holdings is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Selena Maranjian has positions in ASML, Amazon, Apple, HSBC Holdings, Microsoft, Novartis, Nvidia, Roche Holding AG, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends ASML, Amazon, Apple, AstraZeneca Plc, Microsoft, Nvidia, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, Tencent, and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool recommends HSBC Holdings and Roche Holding AG. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"IXUS offers genuine diversification and yield but its long-term track record of underperforming VOO makes it a tactical rather than core holding."
IXUS's 13.46% YTD return in 2026 edges VOO's 10.81%, driven by heavy Asia exposure (TSM 4.37%, SK Hynix, Samsung) and a 2.9% dividend yield vs S&P's 1.1%. The 0.07% fee and 4,300-stock diversification are attractive. However, the article glosses over IXUS's long-term underperformance (5-yr 8.85% vs VOO 13.17%; 10-yr 9.88% vs 15.26%) and the persistent 'lost decade' for international equities. Missing context: U.S. tech/AI dominance (Nvidia, MSFT, AAPL ~39% of S&P) shows no sign of ending, while China/Europe face structural headwinds. International diversification helps in U.S. crashes but often lags during U.S. expansions.
The strongest case against favoring IXUS is that its current outperformance is a short-term cyclical blip; history shows U.S. equities have outperformed ex-U.S. markets in 7 of the last 10 years, and any AI-driven productivity surge will likely widen that gap further.
"Outperformance in IXUS is currently a valuation-driven anomaly rather than a fundamental shift in global growth leadership."
The article’s pivot to IXUS is a classic case of chasing short-term mean reversion. While a 13.46% YTD return looks attractive against VOO’s 10.81%, the 10-year annualized lag of over 500 basis points is the more relevant data point for long-term allocators. The 2.9% dividend yield is a legitimate structural advantage, yet it ignores the currency risk and geopolitical beta inherent in the MSCI ACWI ex-USA index. Investors pivoting here are essentially betting on a weakening USD and a sustained valuation contraction in U.S. mega-caps, which have consistently demonstrated superior free cash flow margins and capital allocation efficiency compared to their international counterparts.
The case against my skepticism is that U.S. equity valuations are at historic premiums, making the valuation gap between the S&P 500 and international markets a potential catalyst for a multi-year rotation into cheaper, high-dividend international value stocks.
"One year of outperformance after a decade of underperformance is reversion to the mean, not a regime shift—buying IXUS now based on 2026 YTD performance is classic performance chasing at exactly the wrong time in a cyclical rotation."
The article's headline is misleading clickbait. IXUS beat VOO by 2.65% year-to-date in 2026—a single-year snapshot with zero predictive power, especially after IXUS lagged by 5.09% annually over 10 years. The real story: international equities are cyclical, and 2026 appears to be a mean-reversion year favoring non-US markets after US mega-cap dominance (the 'Magnificent Seven'). The 2.9% dividend yield vs. 1.1% for S&P 500 is real but reflects valuation, not quality. Holdings like TSM, SK Hynix, and Samsung face cyclical semiconductor weakness and China exposure risk. The article conflates diversification (valid) with performance chasing (dangerous).
If semiconductor cycle is bottoming and China stimulus accelerates, IXUS's 40%+ Asia weighting could genuinely outperform for 2-3 years, making this timing less bad than it appears; also, 10-year underperformance was partly US exceptionalism that may not persist.
"Durable alpha from international ex-US equities is unlikely; diversification is the real payoff, not a repeatable upside over the S&P."
Headline numbers show IXUS up 13.46% YTD vs VOO 10.81%, feeding a narrative that international equities are quietly beating the S&P. But the longer-run record is less friendly: 3-year returns 18.89% vs 20.94% for US, 5-year 8.85% vs 13.17%, 10-year 9.88% vs 15.26%. The apparent edge may be cyclical and concentration risk in certain regions; plus IXUS is unhedged to USD, so a rising dollar can erase part of gains when translated back. Dividend yield premium helps but isn’t a moat against drawdowns. Finally, exposure to China/Europe can be volatile, and a US-led cycle could reassert itself.
Bear case against neutral: ex-US regions could deliver a durable alpha if valuations normalize and US megacap growth slows, supported by cheaper multiples and improving cyclicals in Europe/EM. Additionally, unhedged FX risk means a stronger dollar can erode returns in USD terms.
"IXUS's current outperformance already discounts the very cyclical recovery Claude cites, leaving FX and valuation re-rating as primary downside risks."
Claude's semiconductor-cycle bottoming scenario for IXUS's Asia tilt ignores that TSM, SK Hynix, and Samsung already embed aggressive AI capex expectations. Any China stimulus-driven rebound is likely already priced; the real unmentioned risk is USD strength from Fed policy divergence, which would amplify IXUS's currency drag beyond the 2.9% yield buffer.
"IXUS provides an essential hedge against potential U.S. fiscal-driven dollar devaluation, which is a factor overlooked by those purely focused on semiconductor cycles and Fed policy."
Grok, your focus on Fed-driven USD strength is critical, but you overlook the fiscal side. If the U.S. continues running massive deficits, the 'bond vigilantes' could force a structural dollar devaluation that actually acts as a tailwind for IXUS. Claude and Gemini are right about the cyclical trap, but they ignore that IXUS isn't just a bet on growth—it’s a hedge against U.S. fiscal dominance. The real risk isn't just semiconductor cycles; it's the potential for a long-term shift in global reserve currency dynamics.
"IXUS's 2026 beat is rate-cycle dependent, not structural; mean reversion often overshoots, then reverses hard."
Gemini's fiscal-dominance thesis is speculative—'bond vigilantes' forcing structural dollar devaluation is a low-probability tail scenario, not a base case. More pressing: if US deficits spike AND Fed stays hawkish (fighting inflation), USD strengthens regardless. That kills IXUS's yield advantage. Nobody's addressed the timing mismatch: IXUS's 2026 outperformance could evaporate in Q1 2027 if Fed cuts faster than expected, inverting the rate-differential advantage that's currently propping up international relative value.
"A bottoming semiconductor cycle is not a durable driver for IXUS; macro, policy, and China exposure risk can cap upside."
Claude, your semiconductor-cycle bottoming thesis relies on an AI capex reacceleration lifting IXUS's Asia tilt. But IXUS isn't just a cyclical bet: it carries policy/regulatory risk (US chip export controls, Taiwan tensions) and China exposure that could derail any short-lived bounce. If AI demand cools or regulatory risk intensifies, IXUS could revert to its multi-year underperformance. The durability of the rally hinges on more than the semis cycle turning.
Despite a strong 2026 performance, IXUS's long-term underperformance and structural risks, such as USD strength and geopolitical beta, make a compelling case for caution.
Potential dividend yield advantage and diversification benefits
USD strength from Fed policy divergence and potential regulatory risks in China