Among the four accumulating S&P 500 UCITS share classes compared here, State Street SPDR has the lowest published annual charge at 0.03%. Invesco follows at 0.05%; Vanguard and iShares share third place at 0.07%. The ranking compares annual fund charges; it is a selected comparison, not a search of the whole market or an overall recommendation.
How much does that fee gap matter? On an unchanged holding of 10,000, the difference between 0.03% and 0.07% is about 4 a year. For a holding valued in euros, that means roughly €4; the same calculation works in other currencies. Broker charges and the cost of switching deserve a place in the comparison too.
The S&P 500 tracks large US companies. An ETF is a fund traded on an exchange, and an accumulating share class keeps income inside the fund rather than paying it out as cash. All four funds seek S&P 500 exposure, but their structures and actual returns can differ.
Issuer information checked: 19 October 2026. Charges below use the issuers’ own labels and exclude trading, platform and other investor-level costs.
The ranking: published annual fund charges
The final column shows the approximate annual charge on a holding whose average value stays at 10,000. Amounts use the same currency as the holding. Fund charges are reflected in the fund’s value rather than sent as a separate bill.
| Rank | Fund and issuer source | ISIN | Published annual fund charge | Approximate charge on 10,000 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State Street SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF (Acc) | IE000XZSV718 |
0.03% (TER) | 3.00 |
| 2 | Invesco S&P 500 UCITS ETF Acc | IE00B3YCGJ38 |
0.05% (Management and administrative/operating costs) | 5.00 |
| 3 = | Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (USD) Accumulating | IE00BFMXXD54 |
0.07% (Ongoing charges) | 7.00 |
| 3 = | iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | IE00B5BMR087 |
0.07% (TER) | 7.00 |
TER stands for total expense ratio. Vanguard calls its figure ongoing charges; Invesco uses management and other administrative or operating costs. We retain those labels so you can check the figures against the original documents. These headline charges are only one part of the total cost of investing.
What separates the four funds?
1. State Street SPDR: the lowest headline charge in this selection
State Street SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF (Acc), ISIN IE000XZSV718, publishes a 0.03% TER, putting it first on annual charges in this selection. The issuer describes its replication method as replicated and its income treatment as accumulation. A lower charge alone tells us nothing about which fund will deliver the highest future return.
2. Invesco: a swap-based structure
Invesco S&P 500 UCITS ETF Acc, ISIN IE00B3YCGJ38, discloses annual management and administrative or operating costs of 0.05% in its key information document dated 21 August 2026. Unlike a fund that directly holds the index’s shares, it uses swaps: contracts that exchange the performance of its holdings for index performance. That introduces counterparty risk, and its holdings should not be assumed to match the S&P 500’s stocks.
Joint third: Vanguard and iShares at 0.07%
Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (USD) Accumulating, ISIN IE00BFMXXD54, discloses 0.07% ongoing charges in its key investor information. It uses physical acquisition and may sample the index. The charge is based on the expense year ended 31 December 2025.
iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD (Acc), ISIN IE00B5BMR087, publishes a 0.07% TER and uses physical replication. Both funds charge 0.07%, so they share third place. To choose between them, you would need to look beyond this fee measure.
How much is a 0.03% versus 0.07% fee difference worth?
The gap is 0.04 percentage points a year, also called four basis points. Multiply the average value of your holding by 0.0004 to estimate the annual difference. A 10,000 holding gives approximately 4 a year; a 100,000 holding gives about 40.
| Average holding | Approximate annual difference |
|---|---|
| 1,000 | 0.40 |
| 5,000 | 2 |
| 10,000 | 4 |
| 50,000 | 20 |
| 100,000 | 40 |
These examples hold the average balance constant and compare only the headline charge. As your holding changes in value, the money amount changes too.
A 20-year fee-only projection
A small annual difference also affects how much remains invested over time. To illustrate that effect, the following model starts with 10,000, adds 200 at the start of every month, and runs for 20 years. Total contributions are 58,000. Each fee level uses the same constant gross-return assumption: either 0% or 5%. Neither is a forecast.
| Annual fee | Ending value with 0% gross annual return | Ending value with 5% gross annual return |
|---|---|---|
| 0.03% | 57,795.84 | 107,581.72 |
| 0.05% | 57,660.22 | 107,287.65 |
| 0.07% | 57,524.98 | 106,994.48 |
Under the 5% gross-return assumption, the ending-value difference between the 0.03% and 0.07% projections is 587.24. Under the 0% assumption it is 270.86. These gaps describe the model, not the future performance difference between the named ETFs.
The model applies a monthly factor of ((1 + annual gross return) × (1 − annual fee))^(1/12), with each contribution added before that month’s growth. Taxes, inflation, brokerage charges, currency conversion, bid-ask spreads and differences in tracking are excluded. Actual funds do not deliver the same smooth gross return or necessarily deduct costs on this schedule.
Use the Investment Fee Calculator to change the starting balance, contribution, horizon and assumed return. Read how expense ratios compound for the calculation method. The projected gap includes lost compounding as well as the fee effect; it is not a statement of fees paid.
When trading costs can outweigh the fee saving
Suppose your broker would charge an extra 12 a year to hold or buy the lower-fee option. The 0.04-percentage-point fund-charge saving would cover that extra cost at a constant average holding of 30,000: 12 ÷ 0.0004 = 30,000. Below that balance, the extra broker charge would be larger than the fee saving. This is an illustrative threshold, not a broker quotation.
Switching an existing holding creates a different question. If the extra one-off cost were 20, a constant 10,000 balance would save approximately 4 a year on the headline fee alone. The simplified break-even time would be five years: 20 ÷ 4 = 5. Taxes, market moves, spreads and changed fees could alter that result materially.
For a small or frequently traded holding, check the total cost of buying and holding the fund through the actual broker. A lower fund charge does not guarantee a lower overall investing cost.
What this ranking does not settle
- Tracking difference: the gap between a fund’s return and its stated benchmark over a matched period. This page does not rank realised performance or provide a historical tracking study.
- Trading costs: the bid-ask spread, commission, platform fee and currency-conversion charge depend on the broker, trading line and order. The spread is the difference between quoted buying and selling prices.
- Replication and risk: physical and swap-based funds have different implementation details. Read the relevant prospectus and key information document.
- Currency: a ticker and trading currency are not enough to identify a share class or establish whether it is currency-hedged. Confirm the ISIN and official share-class documents.
- Tax and access: tax treatment, account eligibility and broker availability depend on the investor’s jurisdiction. An accumulating class does not establish tax-free income.
- Diversification: S&P 500 exposure is US large-company exposure. This comparison does not make it a complete global portfolio.
How to use the ranking
- Confirm the intended index, income treatment and share class using its ISIN.
- Check which of the selected funds and trading lines your broker actually offers.
- Compare broker, platform, currency-conversion and spread costs alongside the fund charge.
- Read the issuer’s current documents and any relevant local tax or account rules.
- Use the fee calculator to understand the size of a fee difference under your own assumptions; keep that projection separate from a performance expectation.
Selection, sources and maintenance
This is a document-based comparison of four selected accumulating UCITS share classes from State Street, Invesco, Vanguard and iShares. They provide a bounded comparison across different published charge levels and replication approaches. We did not screen the entire market, rank funds by return, or test broker execution. The order is determined only by the disclosed annual charge, with ties preserved. This article contains no affiliate links.
- State Street issuer page: ISIN, TER, accumulation and replication fields checked on 19 October 2026.
- Invesco key information document: dated 21 August 2026; costs and swap description checked on 19 October 2026.
- Vanguard key investor information: accurate as at 17 February 2026; charges and share-class details checked on 19 October 2026.
- iShares issuer page: ISIN, TER, accumulation and methodology fields checked on 19 October 2026.
Charges and product details can change, so check the current issuer documents before investing. The calculations here are educational illustrations, not personalised investment advice.