By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agrees that VEA is the superior choice for long-term international diversification due to its lower expense ratio, larger AUM, higher yield, and genuine ex-US developed-market exposure. However, NZAC's lower 5-year max drawdown and potential for premium flows into climate ETFs are notable considerations.
Risk: Concentration bias in NZAC towards tech and U.S.-mega-caps due to climate screens, potentially under-diversifying and tying performance to a few names.
Opportunity: VEA's scale and broad diversification, offering a pure, low-cost ex-US developed-market core.
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 →
Investors choosing between Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (NYSEMKT:VEA) and State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NASDAQ:NZAC) must weigh broad international exposure against a targeted net-zero climate strategy.
Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF tracks established non-U.S. economies, offering low-cost access to thousands of companies across Europe and the Pacific. In contrast, the State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF targets global companies aligned with the Paris Agreement, utilizing specific environmental screens that lead to a distinct portfolio tilt toward technology and sustainable transition leaders.
| Metric | VEA | NZAC | |---|---|---| | Issuer | Vanguard | SPDR | | Share price | $70.99 (as of 2026-07-10) | $46.19 (as of 2026-07-10) | | Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.12% | | 1-yr return (as of 2026-07-10) | 27.40% | 19.10% | | Dividend yield | 2.60% | 2.10% | | Beta | 0.83 | 0.95 | | AUM | $317.3 billion | $193.6 million |
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months. Dividend yield is the trailing-12-month distribution yield.
The Vanguard fund remains one of the most affordable options in its category with a 0.03% expense ratio. While State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF is cost-competitive for an ESG strategy at 0.12%, it offers a lower payout to shareholders.
| Metric | VEA | NZAC | |---|---|---| | Max drawdown (5 yr) | (29.70%) | (28.30%) | | Growth of $1,000 over 5 years (total return) | $1,599 | $1,576 |
State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NASDAQ:NZAC) focuses on sectors like Technology at 34.00%, Financial Services at 14.00%, and Cash & Others at 10.00%. It holds 630 positions, and its largest positions include Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) at 6.01%, Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) at 5.05%, and Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) at 3.02%. The fund applies an ESG screen to maintain alignment with international climate goals. It was launched in 2014. State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF has paid $0.94 per share over the trailing 12 months, which on its recent ~$46.19 share price works out to a 2.10% yield.
Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (NYSEMKT:VEA) spreads its 3,873 holdings across Financial Services at 23.00%, Industrials at 18.00%, and Technology at 17.00%. Its top holdings include Samsung Electronics (KRX:005930) at 3.01%, SK Hynix (NASDAQ:SKHY) at 2.57%, and ASML Holding (NASDAQ:ASML) at 1.91%. The fund seeks to replicate the FTSE Developed All Cap ex U.S. Index by investing in a wide array of large-, mid-, and small-cap stocks. It was launched in 2007. Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF has paid $1.81 per share over the trailing 12 months, which on its recent ~$70.99 share price works out to a 2.60% yield.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
International stocks delivered one of their strongest runs in years recently, and both VEA and NZAC captured gains during that period. But these two funds are solving for different problems, which is the most important thing to understand before choosing between them.
VEA is a pure international diversifier, holding thousands of companies across developed markets in Europe, Japan, Canada, and Australia with no U.S. exposure whatsoever. Investors who want to balance a U.S.-heavy portfolio with international exposure will find VEA does that job directly and at a very low cost.
NZAC holds significant U.S. exposure alongside global markets, filtered through a Paris Agreement climate screen. Its top holdings are the same megacap names that dominate most American portfolios already, meaning it delivers less international diversification than its “global” label implies.
Another major difference here is that VEA charges a fraction of what NZAC does. So for most long-term investors seeking international exposure as a counterweight to domestic holdings, VEA is the more purposeful and cost-efficient choice. NZAC is the one to consider if you want to align your investments with the goals of the Paris climate agreement.
Before you buy stock in SPDR Index Shares Funds - State Street SPDR Msci Acwi Climate Paris Aligned 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 Index Shares Funds - State Street SPDR Msci Acwi Climate Paris Aligned 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 $398,160! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,249,202!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 918% — 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 14, 2026. *
Sara Appino has positions in Apple and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends ASML, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF. 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
"VEA remains the superior low-cost ex-US diversifier for most long-term investors, but NZAC's climate tilt could outperform if policy tailwinds intensify beyond the article's framing."
The article presents VEA as the clear winner for long-term international diversification: 0.03% expense ratio vs NZAC's 0.12%, $317B AUM vs $194M, 27.4% 1-yr return vs 19.1%, higher 2.6% yield, and genuine ex-US developed-market exposure (financials/industrials tilt, top holdings Samsung/SK Hynix/ASML). NZAC's Paris-aligned ESG screen delivers heavy US tech overlap (NVDA 6%, AAPL 5%, MSFT 3%; 34% tech) that undermines its "global" label and adds unnecessary cost for most portfolios. However, the piece glosses over NZAC's lower 5-yr max drawdown and comparable $1,000 growth ($1,576 vs $1,599), plus the accelerating regulatory and investor push toward net-zero mandates that could drive premium flows into climate ETFs.
If carbon-transition policies accelerate and ESG AUM continues compounding at 15-20% annually, NZAC's targeted Paris alignment could capture structural inflows and re-rate higher, while VEA's traditional developed-market basket risks stranded assets in high-emission financials and industrials.
"NZAC fails as a global diversifier because its heavy U.S. megacap concentration replicates existing domestic portfolio risks rather than mitigating them."
Comparing VEA and NZAC is an apples-to-oranges exercise in portfolio construction. The article correctly identifies VEA as a core, low-cost beta play for non-U.S. developed market exposure. However, it misses the critical structural risk in NZAC: it is effectively a 'closet' U.S. tech fund masquerading as a global climate vehicle. With Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft as top holdings, NZAC offers zero diversification for an investor already holding a standard S&P 500 index. Investors buying NZAC for 'global' exposure are actually doubling down on U.S. megacap concentration risk. VEA remains the superior vehicle for genuine geographic diversification, provided the investor understands they are sacrificing the momentum of U.S. tech.
If the global energy transition accelerates, NZAC's Paris-aligned screening could lead to significant alpha relative to VEA's heavy exposure to legacy industrial and financial sectors that may face long-term climate-related headwinds.
"NZAC is mislabeled as a global diversifier when it's actually a concentrated US-tech-heavy climate fund, making the article's comparison intellectually incoherent and NZAC unsuitable for its stated use case."
This article presents a false choice between two fundamentally different products. VEA (0.03% ER, $317B AUM) is a pure developed-markets ex-US diversifier; NZAC (0.12% ER, $193.6M AUM) is a climate-screened global fund with significant US tech overlap. The article correctly identifies NZAC's 34% tech weighting and substantial NVDA/AAPL/MSFT positions—meaning it's not solving the international diversification problem at all. However, the article buries a critical omission: NZAC's 5-year underperformance (19.1% vs 27.4% 1-yr return) may reflect climate screens filtering out energy/materials, not just a different mandate. For investors seeking true non-US exposure, VEA is obviously superior. But the comparison itself is misleading—these aren't competing solutions.
If climate transition accelerates and energy/materials collapse while tech leads for a decade, NZAC's underweight to fossil fuels becomes a feature, not a bug—and its tech concentration could outperform VEA's Samsung/ASML/industrial tilt significantly. The 9-basis-point fee difference is noise if NZAC's screen captures a structural shift.
"NZAC introduces meaningful concentration and liquidity risks that the article glosses over, making VEA the more robust long-term core option."
From a contrarian angle, the article glosses over two big NZAC risks: (1) tracking error and liquidity concerns for a ~$193.6m ETF with 630 holdings, which can magnify costs in stressed periods; (2) concentration bias: though labeled global, NZAC leans toward tech and U.S.-mega-caps due to climate screens, potentially under-diversifying and tying performance to a few names. VEA, by contrast, offers a pure, low-cost ex-US developed-market core with broad diversification. The NZAC case hinges on climate-tailwind bets; the risk is regime risk (policy shifts) and higher fees. A pragmatic stance is a diversified sleeve: heavy VEA core with a modest NZAC satellite if climate exposure matters.
NZAC could outperform if climate policy accelerates and AI/tech leadership persists; the article underplays the potential for green-tech secular demand and the diversification benefit of climate screens, making NZAC a viable satellite rather than a risk-heavy add-on.
"NZAC's holdings count masks dangerous concentration risk the drawdown metric understates."
Nobody has flagged NZAC's 630 holdings versus VEA's tighter ~4,000-name universe: the climate screen creates artificial concentration that amplifies single-name volatility (NVDA 6%) far beyond what the 5-yr max drawdown statistic captures. Liquidity risk in stressed markets is real but secondary to this hidden beta mismatch. VEA's scale still wins for true ex-US beta.
"VEA likely offers superior tax efficiency over NZAC due to its scale and lower portfolio turnover, a cost factor often overlooked in favor of expense ratios."
Grok, your focus on concentration risk is vital, but we are ignoring the tax-efficiency angle. VEA’s massive AUM and turnover profile allow for superior in-kind creation/redemption processes, minimizing capital gains distributions compared to a smaller, active-screening fund like NZAC. In a taxable account, NZAC’s 'green' mandate could trigger hidden costs via higher turnover and realized gains. VEA isn't just cheaper on the expense ratio; it’s likely far more tax-efficient for long-term holders.
"Tax efficiency depends on NZAC's actual turnover rate, not just its screening mandate—Gemini assumes higher turnover without evidence."
Gemini's tax-efficiency argument is sharp, but it assumes NZAC's screening creates *higher* turnover—unverified from the article. VEA's $317B scale certainly enables cheaper creation/redemption, but NZAC's passive climate screen may actually *lower* turnover versus active management. The real tax risk is unrealized gains sitting in concentrated positions (NVDA 6%), not necessarily distribution frequency. Need turnover data before crowning VEA the tax winner.
"NZAC's 630-holding climate-screen is not a diversified global sleeve; it concentrates beta in megacaps and amplifies tracking error and liquidity risk in stress."
NZAC’s 630-holding climate-screen is not a diversified global sleeve; it concentrates beta in a handful of megacaps (NVDA, AAPL, MSFT) and amplifies tracking error and liquidity risk in stress. The article’s ‘global’ label hides regime risk around climate policies and currency/sector shifts that could amplify volatility and drag long-run diversification benefits. A more meaningful test is performance during tech drawdowns and policy pivots, not just 1-year gains.
The panel generally agrees that VEA is the superior choice for long-term international diversification due to its lower expense ratio, larger AUM, higher yield, and genuine ex-US developed-market exposure. However, NZAC's lower 5-year max drawdown and potential for premium flows into climate ETFs are notable considerations.
VEA's scale and broad diversification, offering a pure, low-cost ex-US developed-market core.
Concentration bias in NZAC towards tech and U.S.-mega-caps due to climate screens, potentially under-diversifying and tying performance to a few names.