If you have been comparing the two cheapest Amundi Prime global funds, you have probably hit the same wall I did: the tickers look almost identical, the fees are within a rounding error of each other, and Amundi’s own marketing does not make the distinction loud. So let me give you the honest answer first. WEBN and WEBG are not two versions of the same fund. WEBN (Amundi Prime All Country World) holds developed and emerging markets in one line. WEBG (Amundi Prime Global) holds developed markets only. Everything else that matters flows from that single difference.
In other words, this is the classic all-world versus developed-world decision wearing an Amundi badge. Choosing WEBN means one fund covers roughly the whole investable equity market and you never touch it again. Choosing WEBG means you have deliberately left emerging markets out, either because you do not want them or because you plan to add an emerging-markets ETF separately and control that weight yourself. Neither is wrong. They suit different investors, and I will lay out which is which.
I have held Amundi’s cheap trackers alongside the Vanguard and iShares equivalents for years, so I will also flag the one Amundi-specific wrinkle: this is a provider with a real history of merging and renaming funds. Not a reason to avoid it, but a reason to know what you are buying.
What WEBN and WEBG actually are
Both funds sit inside Amundi’s “Prime” range, which is the house’s deliberately low-cost, physically replicated core line-up built on Solactive indices rather than the more famous MSCI or FTSE benchmarks. Both are UCITS ETFs, both are accumulating (dividends are reinvested inside the fund rather than paid to you), and both are Irish-domiciled at the time of writing, which matters for the treatment of US dividend withholding tax. Treat every figure here as approximate and 2026-vintage, and confirm the current numbers on the official factsheet before you buy.
Selection criteria: the ETF selection methodology explains exactly how funds earn a place in this comparison.
WEBN, the Amundi Prime All Country World UCITS ETF, tracks a Solactive Global Benchmark Series index covering large- and mid-cap companies across developed and emerging markets. That is several thousand holdings and, in spirit, the same job as VWCE or a broad ACWI tracker: buy the world in one line. I have written a fuller standalone breakdown of this fund on the Amundi Prime All Country World page if you want the deep version.
WEBG, the Amundi Prime Global UCITS ETF, tracks the developed-markets slice of that same Solactive family. Think of it as the MSCI World equivalent inside the Prime range: the United States, Japan, the UK, the eurozone, Canada, Australia and the other developed markets, with no China, India, Taiwan, Brazil or the rest of the emerging bloc.
The one real difference: emerging markets
Emerging markets make up somewhere in the region of 10% of global market capitalisation. That is the entire practical gap between these two funds. WEBN gives you that slice automatically; WEBG does not.
Why would you want emerging markets? Diversification, and the argument that a good chunk of future global growth sits outside the developed world. Why skip them? Some investors find the extra volatility and governance concerns not worth it and prefer a cleaner developed-only core. Both positions are defensible.
What I do have a strong view on is being deliberate. If you buy WEBG thinking you have bought “the world”, you have quietly made an active bet against emerging markets without realising it. That is fine if it is a choice. It is a problem if it is an accident. If you want emerging exposure but also want to control its weight, WEBG plus a separate emerging-markets ETF lets you dial it to, say, 5% or 15% rather than accepting the market-cap default. WEBN locks you into whatever the index says, which for most people is exactly the low-maintenance feature they want.
Index, replication and holdings
Both funds use physical replication with optimised sampling: Amundi actually buys the underlying shares rather than using a swap, though for the broadest indices it may hold a representative sample rather than every tiny constituent. This is standard for large global trackers. It is worth knowing only because the Prime range is sometimes confused with Amundi’s older synthetic, swap-based products; these Prime funds are physical.
The Solactive indices behind them are less famous than MSCI or FTSE, and that is precisely how Amundi keeps the licensing cost, and therefore the fee, down. In terms of what you actually own, a Solactive large-and-mid-cap index tracks the same broad universe as its MSCI cousin very closely: the same mega-cap US technology names at the top, near-identical country and sector weights. Small methodology differences exist, but for a buy-and-hold investor they are noise.
If you want to line these up field by field against VWCE or an iShares equivalent rather than eyeballing factsheets, our UCITS ETF comparison tool lets you put the tickers side by side on fee, index, size and structure.
Cost: the TER story
This is where the Prime range earns its keep. Both funds sit at the ultra-low end of the market, with total expense ratios in the ballpark of 0.05% to 0.07% a year depending on the fund and the current schedule. The developed-only WEBG tends to be a touch cheaper than the all-country WEBN, which is normal because the emerging-markets sleeve is more expensive to run.
To put that in context, on a €50,000 holding a 0.02% difference is around €10 a year. Real, but not the number that should drive your decision. The scope of the fund, developed-only versus all-world, matters far more to your long-run outcome than a two-basis-point fee gap, so do not let a tiny TER advantage on WEBG make you forget that it leaves out emerging markets entirely. Always confirm the live TER on Amundi’s official ETF product pages, since these fees have been cut repeatedly during the recent provider price war.
The Amundi caveat worth knowing
Here is the thing I would want a friend to tell me. Amundi is Europe’s largest asset manager and it grew partly by acquisition, most notably absorbing Lyxor. As a result it has a genuine track record of merging funds, changing indices, renaming products and occasionally re-domiciling them. None of that has to hurt you, but a fund merger or an index switch can create a taxable event in some countries, and a re-domicile can change the withholding-tax picture.
Learning ETFs the slow way?
The free 12-page Starter Kit gets you to a first, sensible portfolio faster: the 7-filter fund shortcut, the 3-question broker matrix, and the 7 costliest beginner mistakes.
Practically, keep an eye on shareholder notices for any Prime fund you own rather than assuming it will look identical in five years, and weigh that against how you feel about provider stability. I set out the fuller comparison in Amundi versus Vanguard and Amundi versus iShares, where the trade-off is the same each time: Amundi gives you the lowest headline fees, while Vanguard and iShares give you boringly stable product ranges. For a long-term core holding, that stability has real value.
WEBN vs WEBG side by side
| Feature | WEBN — Prime All Country World | WEBG — Prime Global |
|---|---|---|
| Market coverage | Developed + emerging markets | Developed markets only |
| Index family | Solactive GBS global, large & mid cap | Solactive GBS developed, large & mid cap |
| Emerging-markets weight | ~10% (market-cap default) | 0% (add separately if wanted) |
| Approx. TER | ~0.07% (verify current) | ~0.05% (verify current) |
| Replication | Physical, optimised sampling | Physical, optimised sampling |
| Distribution | Accumulating | Accumulating |
| Best for | One-fund, hands-off global investor | Developed-only core, or a build-your-own allocator |
My verdict: which one I would buy
For the vast majority of readers who want a single global equity fund and nothing else, I would pick WEBN. The whole point of an all-world holding is that you never have to make another allocation decision, and WEBN delivers exactly that inside the cheapest range on the market. The slightly higher fee versus WEBG is a fair price for not having to bolt on an emerging-markets fund and rebalance it forever.
I would choose WEBG in two situations. The first is if you simply do not want emerging markets and are comfortable owning that view explicitly. The second is if you are a deliberate portfolio builder who wants to set your own emerging-markets weight, in which case WEBG as your developed core plus a separate EM ETF gives you that control at a slightly lower blended cost. If you are torn between WEBN and the far more popular Vanguard all-world, my VWCE vs WEBN comparison weighs fee against fund maturity and provider track record in detail.
Whichever you pick, decide on the emerging-markets question first and let the ticker follow. That is the decision that actually shapes your returns; the fee and the fund name are secondary.
Frequently asked questions
Q: What is the difference between WEBN and WEBG?
A: WEBN (Amundi Prime All Country World) holds both developed and emerging markets in one fund, while WEBG (Amundi Prime Global) holds developed markets only. That roughly 10% emerging-markets sleeve is the single meaningful difference between them; both are cheap, accumulating, physically replicated UCITS ETFs otherwise.
Q: Is WEBN or WEBG cheaper?
A: WEBG typically carries a slightly lower total expense ratio than WEBN because a developed-only index is cheaper to run than one including emerging markets. The gap is small, on the order of a couple of basis points, so scope should drive your choice far more than that fee difference. Check the current TER on Amundi’s official factsheet before buying.
Q: Does WEBG include emerging markets?
A: No. WEBG is a developed-markets fund, so it excludes China, India, Taiwan, Brazil and the rest of the emerging bloc entirely. If you want that exposure you either choose WEBN instead or add a separate emerging-markets ETF alongside WEBG and set the weight yourself.
Q: Is WEBN a good alternative to VWCE?
A: It covers the same all-world universe at a similar or lower fee, so on paper it is a genuine alternative. The trade-offs are that WEBN uses a Solactive index rather than FTSE, and Amundi has a more active history of fund mergers and rebrands than Vanguard. My VWCE vs WEBN article walks through that comparison in full.
Q: Are WEBN and WEBG accumulating or distributing?
A: Both are accumulating share classes, meaning dividends are reinvested automatically inside the fund rather than paid into your account. That suits investors in the growth phase and can simplify tax admin in some countries, though accumulating funds are treated differently across the EU, so check your local rules.
Q: What is the Amundi risk I should know about?
A: Amundi grew partly through acquisitions and has a real history of merging, renaming and re-domiciling ETFs, which can occasionally trigger a taxable event or change the tax profile of a fund you hold. It is not a reason to avoid the Prime range, but do watch shareholder notices and weigh that against the more stable product ranges from Vanguard and iShares.
European UCITS/ETF investor with 11+ years building a global dividend and index portfolio, and founder of Financial Expert Class. I write every guide here from first-hand experience investing across EU brokers and tax regimes — not theory. More about me →