WEBN vs FWRA 2026: the cheap all-world challengers head-to-head

By Kestutis Balciunas·Reviewed August 24, 2026

The WEBN vs FWRA question is the freshest one in European index investing, because these are the two young funds actively undercutting Vanguard’s all-world flagship. Amundi’s WEBN charges roughly 0.07%. Invesco’s FWRA charges roughly 0.15%. Both are accumulating, Irish-domiciled, physical global trackers. So the choice looks trivial — pick the cheaper one, surely? Not quite. They track different indices from different providers, they launched a year apart, and availability varies by broker. I have followed both since launch, and this comparison covers the differences that actually move your money.

WEBN vs FWRA: the quick verdict

Because most readers want the answer first, here it is by investor type.

• Pure cost minimiser: WEBN. At roughly 0.07%, nothing in the all-world category comes close on headline fee.
• FTSE All-World loyalist: FWRA. It tracks the exact index VWCE follows, at a lower price.
• Savings-plan investor: check your platform first. The fund your broker executes free wins by default.
• Nervous about young funds: honestly, neither — or FWRA at a stretch, being a year older and tracking the better-documented index. VWCE remains the comfort choice.

In short: this is a decision about index preference, platform availability and tracking record, not about which fund is “better”. Both are credible. The single-fund breakdowns live in my WEBN factsheet and FWRA factsheet.

Selection criteria: the fund comparison criteria explains exactly how funds earn a place in this comparison.

The head-to-head at a glance

All figures are approximate and move constantly — verify them on each issuer’s factsheet before you invest.

Rates referenced here follow our 2026 ETF tax data, checked against official sources.

The index difference that actually matters

Here is the most important fact in this comparison: these funds do not track the same index. FWRA follows the FTSE All-World — roughly 4,000 large and mid-cap companies across developed and emerging markets, the exact benchmark behind VWCE. WEBN follows the Solactive GBS Global Markets Large & Mid Cap index, an all-country benchmark from a different provider with its own rulebook.

In practice, the two portfolios look remarkably similar. Both are market-cap weighted, put well over half the money in the United States led by the same mega-cap technology names, and allocate roughly a tenth to emerging markets. Side by side, you would struggle to tell their country and sector weights apart.

The differences hide in the plumbing. FTSE and Solactive draw their country classifications, size cut-offs and rebalancing schedules slightly differently. Neither approach is better; they are simply not identical. Over any given year, the two indices will drift apart by a few basis points in either direction, and nobody can predict which way.

Why does Amundi use Solactive at all? Licensing cost. FTSE and MSCI charge meaningful fees for their brand names; Solactive licenses far more cheaply, and that saving is a large part of how WEBN’s TER got so low. So the real question is personal. If you value the FTSE label and its decades of published history, pay for FWRA. If you only care about the exposure, WEBN delivers essentially the same world for less.

WEBN vs FWRA costs and tracking difference

On headline fee, the WEBN vs FWRA contest is one-sided. WEBN’s roughly 0.07% TER is around half of FWRA’s roughly 0.15% — treat both as illustrative, because issuers do reprice. On a €100,000 portfolio, the gap is worth about €80 a year: real money, though smaller than most fee debates suggest.

However, the TER is not the true cost of owning an ETF. The true cost is tracking difference: how far the fund’s return lands from its index after fees, trading costs, withholding tax and lending revenue. On that measure, both funds have started well.

WEBN has tracked its Solactive benchmark tightly over its first two years. The realised gap has stayed close to the TER, and in some periods narrower. FWRA’s early tracking has also been competitive, despite the extra wiggle room that optimised sampling introduces — Invesco holds around 2,300–2,400 of the index’s roughly 4,000 stocks and models the remainder statistically. Both funds share the same structural tailwinds: Irish domicile, which cuts US dividend withholding tax to 15% under the treaty, and lending revenue that offsets running costs.

The honest caveat applies equally to both. Two or three years of data is a promising start, not a proven record. Check the latest realised tracking figures on justETF before committing, and re-check yearly.

Size, age and the young-fund question

Neither fund has lived through a proper bear market under its own name. FWRA launched in June 2023; WEBN followed in June 2024. That gives Invesco a one-year head start, and its asset base — around €3.5 billion at the time of writing — is correspondingly larger. WEBN crossed €2 billion within its first two years, a remarkable pace for any European ETF.

Does the age gap matter? A little, and honestly less than it first appears. Both funds are comfortably past the size where closure risk would worry me. Both are conventional Irish UCITS structures with segregated assets, run by two of Europe’s largest asset managers. The realistic “youth” costs are softer: slightly wider spreads on thinner listings, and a tracking history too short to prove anything definitively.

One practical note, because the tickers trip people up. WEBN is the accumulating class; WEBG is the distributing version of the same Amundi portfolio. Invesco’s accumulating class trades as FWRA on Borsa Italiana, the LSE and SIX, as FWIA on Xetra and gettex, and as FWRG in London pence — all one fund, ISIN IE000716YHJ7. The distributing class is FTWD/FTWG. Always confirm the ISIN before ordering, not just the ticker.

Where you can buy each

Availability is the quiet tiebreaker here, and for monthly investors it often decides everything.

WEBN lists on Xetra, gettex and Borsa Italiana, and Amundi has pushed its Prime range aggressively into European savings-plan programmes. Many neobrokers execute WEBN savings plans at zero dealing cost, which suits small monthly contributions perfectly.

FWRA’s footprint is broader across exchanges — EUR lines in Milan and on Xetra and gettex (as FWIA), plus USD, GBP and CHF listings in London and Zurich. That flexibility matters if you fund accounts in other currencies. It is also widely available in savings-plan programmes, particularly in Germany and Italy.

My practical advice is simple. Search both ISINs in your broker’s ETF list. If only one fund is available — or only one qualifies for free savings-plan execution — let the platform decide for you. A 0.08-point TER difference is smaller than recurring commissions on the “wrong” fund. Whichever you trade, use limit orders during core European hours, when spreads on younger funds are tightest.

WEBN vs FWRA vs VWCE: the incumbent both are chasing

Neither fund exists in a vacuum. Both were built to attack VWCE, Vanguard’s FTSE All-World ETF — the default global tracker for a generation of Europeans, with a decade-long record, a huge asset base and — after Vanguard’s 2025–26 fee cuts — a roughly 0.14% TER (it long stood at 0.22%).

Each challenger attacks from a different angle. FWRA offered the identical FTSE All-World index for about a third less than that old fee, a gap Vanguard’s cut has since closed — the cleanest like-for-like fee comparison in European investing, written up fully in my Invesco vs Vanguard FTSE All-World comparison. WEBN goes further: it swaps the index provider entirely and cuts the fee to roughly a third of Vanguard’s. The direct match-up with the incumbent is covered in VWCE vs WEBN.

What should a VWCE holder do? Usually nothing. Selling an established position with embedded gains to save eight or fifteen basis points typically triggers a tax bill that takes years to recoup. Directing new contributions to a cheaper fund captures most of the benefit without the tax damage. The wider field — SPDR’s ACWI IMI fund, iShares’ options and the rest — is mapped in the all-world comparison hub.

My take

After eleven years of doing this, here is my honest position. For brand-new money on equal platform terms, I lean WEBN. The structure is sound, the early tracking backs up the fee, and I do not believe the Solactive label costs investors anything real. Exposure and cost compound; the index provider’s logo does not.

That said, I consider the WEBN vs FWRA gap far smaller than the fee tables imply. FWRA is a genuinely excellent fund, and there are three good reasons to pick it instead. First, if you specifically want the FTSE All-World — because you benchmark against it, or hold VWCE elsewhere — only FWRA delivers it. Second, its extra year of history and larger asset base offer a little more evidence, if evidence settles your nerves. Third, if your platform executes FWRA free and WEBN at a commission, the platform maths beats the TER maths.

What I would not do is agonise. These funds will likely land within a few basis points of each other over the next decade. Picking either one and automating monthly purchases beats six months of indecision.

Common mistakes

• Treating them as identical products. They hold similar worlds through different indices. Small return gaps in either direction are normal, not a malfunction.
• Judging on TER alone. Tracking difference is the real cost. Check the realised gap on justETF yearly rather than trusting the headline fee.
• Buying the wrong share class. WEBG and FTWD are the distributing versions. One wrong letter changes your tax treatment, so verify the ISIN.
• Selling VWCE with big gains to switch. The capital-gains bill usually dwarfs decades of fee savings. Redirect new money instead.
• Ignoring platform costs. A free savings plan on the “more expensive” fund often beats paying commissions on the cheaper one.
• Trading carelessly on thin lines. Limit orders during core hours protect the fee advantage you came for.

Key takeaways

• WEBN (Amundi) charges roughly 0.07% and tracks a Solactive all-country index; FWRA (Invesco) charges roughly 0.15% and tracks the FTSE All-World — the same index as VWCE.
• The portfolios behave near-identically: mostly US mega-caps, plus roughly a tenth in emerging markets, all market-cap weighted.
• Both are young. FWRA launched in June 2023 (~€3.5 billion); WEBN in June 2024 (over €2 billion). Early tracking has been tight at both, but the records are short.
• Both are Irish-domiciled, physically replicated, accumulating UCITS funds with securities lending — structurally conventional in every way.
• The decision rests on index preference, what your broker offers cheaply, and how each tracking record develops.
• All figures here are illustrative — confirm live TER, AUM and holdings on the issuer factsheets before acting.

FAQ

Q: Are WEBN and FWRA the same fund?
A: No. WEBN is Amundi’s all-country fund tracking a Solactive index at roughly 0.07%; FWRA is Invesco’s fund tracking the FTSE All-World at roughly 0.15%. Similar exposure, different indices, issuers and fees.

Q: Which is cheaper, WEBN or FWRA?
A: WEBN, by roughly eight basis points of TER. However, compare realised tracking difference and your platform’s dealing costs too — those can narrow or reverse the headline gap.

Q: Does the Solactive index make WEBN worse than FWRA?
A: No. Solactive is a legitimate, rules-based benchmark whose all-country coverage behaves almost identically to the FTSE All-World. The differences are small methodology details, not a quality gap.

Q: Which fund is bigger and older?
A: FWRA — launched June 2023, around €3.5 billion at the time of writing. WEBN launched in June 2024 and passed €2 billion within two years. Both are past the size where closure risk is a realistic worry.

Q: Are both accumulating?
A: The main classes, yes. WEBN accumulates; WEBG distributes. FWRA (also listed as FWIA and FWRG) accumulates; FTWD/FTWG distributes. Check the ISIN before ordering.

Q: How have they tracked their indices so far?
A: Both have tracked tightly, helped by Irish domicile and lending revenue. WEBN’s realised gap has stayed close to — sometimes below — its TER. Treat both records as promising but short, and verify current figures on justETF.

Q: Should I sell VWCE to buy WEBN or FWRA?
A: Usually not with meaningful unrealised gains in a taxable account — the tax cost typically outweighs the fee saving. Directing new contributions to the cheaper fund is the cleaner move.

Q: Can I hold both WEBN and FWRA?
A: You can, but there is little point. They cover nearly identical ground, so holding both adds paperwork without diversification. Pick one core fund and keep buying it.

Q: Which is better for a monthly savings plan?
A: Whichever your broker executes free. Zero dealing costs matter more than the small TER difference at typical monthly amounts.

Q: Do these funds include small caps?
A: No, both cover large and mid caps only. For small-cap exposure in one all-world fund, SPDR’s MSCI ACWI IMI fund is the usual alternative, at a higher TER.

Cited sources: justETF and Morningstar. Check current TER, AUM and holdings on the issuer factsheet — figures change.

Kestutis Balciunas
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 →