By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
While SPGM offers a lower expense ratio and emerging market exposure, its smaller size and higher volatility pose liquidity and tracking error risks, making it less suitable for risk-averse investors. The choice between SPGM and URTH depends on individual risk tolerance and time horizon.
Risk: Liquidity and tracking error risks due to SPGM's smaller size and higher volatility
Opportunity: Lower expense ratio and emerging market exposure of SPGM
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 →
The State Street SPDR Portfolio MSCI Global Stock Market ETF (NYSEMKT:SPGM) offers broader geographic exposure and a lower expense ratio than the iShares MSCI World ETF (NYSEMKT:URTH).
Both funds serve as core global equity holdings, but they define global differently. While URTH tracks developed markets, SPGM includes emerging markets and a wider range of market capitalizations, providing a more comprehensive slice of international stocks for a fraction of the cost.
| Metric | URTH | SPGM | |---|---|---| | Issuer | iShares | SPDR | | Share price (as of July 6, 2026) | $204.44 | $86.02 | | Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.09% | | 1-yr return (as of July 6, 2026) | 21.4% | 25.6% | | Dividend yield | 1.4% | 1.8% | | Beta | 0.95 | 0.92 | | AUM | $8.1 billion | $1.9 billion |
SPGM is more affordable, with a 0.09% expense ratio compared to 0.24% for its iShares peer. Additionally, the State Street fund currently provides a higher payout, with a yield gap of 0.40 percentage points.
| Metric | URTH | SPGM | |---|---|---| | Max drawdown (5 yr) | (26.1%) | (25.9%) | | Growth of $1,000 over 5 years (total return) | $1,729 | $1,718 |
State Street’s ETF provides broad exposure to established and developing markets, covering sectors like technology at 31%, financial services at 16%, and industrials at 12%. Its largest positions among 2,933 holdings include Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) at 3.99%, Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) at 3.98%, and Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) at 2.39%. The fund was launched in 2012. SPGM has paid $1.54 per share over the trailing 12 months, which on its recent ~$86.02 share price works out to a 1.8% yield.
The iShares fund focuses exclusively on developed economies, with a portfolio leaning into technology at 31%, financial services at 16%, and industrials at 11%. Top holdings among its 1,287 positions include Apple at 5.1%, Nvidia at 5.01%, and Microsoft at 3.03%. URTH was launched in 2012. The iShares ETF has paid $2.84 per share over the trailing 12 months, which on its recent ~$204.44 share price works out to a 1.4% yield.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
URTH and SPGM share several commonalities. Their five-year returns and max drawdowns are about the same. Both have low betas. Their top 10 holdings even include the same eight stocks among them! However, the iShares ETF has a higher expense ratio and lower dividend yield, which may be unattractive to some investors.
One significant difference between URTH and SPGM is their size. The iShares fund has over $8 billion in assets under management, while its counterpart has just under $2 billion. Accordingly, URTH has a much higher average trading volume, and the increased liquidity that accompanies that may be more attractive than SGPM's lower cost and higher dividend yield.
Before you buy stock in SPDR Portfolio MSCI Global Stock Market 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 SPDR Portfolio MSCI Global Stock Market 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 $410,833! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,208,693!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 917% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 209% 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 9, 2026. *
Erin Kennedy has positions in Apple. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia. 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
"The lower expense ratio of SPGM is partially offset by higher transaction costs and potential volatility risks associated with its emerging market exposure."
While the article highlights SPGM’s lower expense ratio and emerging market exposure as clear winners, it ignores the 'liquidity tax' inherent in smaller ETFs. With $1.9B in AUM versus $8.1B for URTH, SPGM likely suffers from wider bid-ask spreads that can easily erode that 0.15% fee advantage for active traders. Furthermore, the performance delta favoring SPGM over the last year is largely a function of its broader beta; in a flight-to-quality scenario, URTH’s exclusive focus on developed markets provides a defensive moat that SPGM’s emerging market allocation lacks. Investors shouldn't just chase the expense ratio; they need to weigh the cost of liquidity against the volatility of the underlying geographic mix.
If you are a long-term 'buy and hold' investor, the liquidity premium is negligible compared to the compounding drag of a 0.24% expense ratio over a 20-year horizon.
"SPGM's cost advantage is real but overstated; URTH's liquidity premium and simplified developed-market-only mandate justify its higher fee for most retail investors, especially those trading frequently or holding smaller positions."
The article frames SPGM as a no-brainer—lower fees, higher yield, emerging market exposure—but obscures a critical structural risk: SPGM's $1.9B AUM versus URTH's $8.1B creates a liquidity moat favoring iShares. Bid-ask spreads widen in smaller ETFs, especially during volatility. More importantly, the article conflates 'same top holdings' with 'same risk profile'—SPGM's emerging market tilt (roughly 15-20% EM exposure) introduces currency and geopolitical tail risks absent from URTH. The 1-year return gap (25.6% vs 21.4%) is cherry-picked; 5-year cumulative returns differ by only $11 per $1,000 invested. Fee savings of 15bps annually don't offset liquidity drag or hidden EM volatility for most retail investors.
SPGM's lower expense ratio and higher dividend yield compound meaningfully over decades, and emerging market exposure is precisely what developed-market-only portfolios miss during EM outperformance cycles—the article's focus on short-term liquidity may undervalue long-term cost efficiency.
"N/A"
[Unavailable]
"SPGM offers a meaningful cost and diversification advantage on paper, but its EM/small-cap tilt and smaller liquidity base require a higher tolerance for tracking error and volatility."
SPGM’s 0.09% expense ratio and broader reach (including EM and small-cap) present a strong case for it as a cost-efficient core global equity sleeve. However, the extra EM/small-cap tilt comes with higher volatility, currency risk, and potential liquidity/tracking-error concerns given SPGM’s smaller $1.9B AUM versus URTH’s $8.1B. The article omits tracking accuracy, liquidity in stressed markets, and currency effects that can erode the apparent cost advantage. In regimes of risk-off or EM stress, SPGM may underperform URTH despite the fees, so the choice hinges on acceptable risk tolerance and time horizon.
URTH’s developed-market focus cushions against EM volatility and currency swings, and its larger size likely means tighter spreads and lower tracking error in crises; SPGM’s cost edge may be offset by higher liquidity risk and EM-driven drawdowns in downturns.
"The liquidity concerns for a $1.9B ETF are exaggerated; the true differentiator is SPGM's small-cap exposure which drives tracking error against URTH."
Claude and Gemini are overstating the liquidity risk for the average retail investor. A $1.9B AUM is hardly 'illiquid'; institutional-grade ETFs rarely see spreads wide enough to negate a 15bps fee advantage for long-term holders. The real risk isn't the bid-ask spread—it's the tracking error relative to the MSCI ACWI IMI index. SPGM’s inclusion of small-caps creates a structural performance drift that makes it a different product entirely, not just a cheaper version of URTH.
"Tracking error, not liquidity or EM volatility, is the decisive metric the article and panel have largely sidestepped."
Gemini's tracking-error point is sharper than the liquidity debate. But 'structural performance drift' needs quantification—how much has SPGM actually deviated from MSCI ACWI IMI versus URTH's deviation from its benchmark? If SPGM tracks within 5bps annually, the small-cap inclusion is a feature, not a bug. The article doesn't provide tracking-error data for either fund, which is the real omission here.
[Unavailable]
"Tracking error and currency sensitivity are the real tests of SPGM's cost advantage, not just the expense ratio."
Claude flags liquidity and EM risks, but the more consequential unknown is tracking error and currency impact. Given SPGM's $1.9B AUM, tracking error relative to ACWI IMI can widen quickly in stress, eroding the fee edge. EM exposure also invites currency swings that can dominate returns in volatile regimes. The article should quantify SPGM's tracking error and currency sensitivity; without that, fee comparisons can be misleading.
While SPGM offers a lower expense ratio and emerging market exposure, its smaller size and higher volatility pose liquidity and tracking error risks, making it less suitable for risk-averse investors. The choice between SPGM and URTH depends on individual risk tolerance and time horizon.
Lower expense ratio and emerging market exposure of SPGM
Liquidity and tracking error risks due to SPGM's smaller size and higher volatility