As at 5 October 2026, active global equity funds in our data held, on average, 18.1% of their portfolios in technology, as FE classifies it. The funds in this note sit well either side of that figure.
The weights
Acadian Global Equity UCITS, from Russell Investments, holds 34.6% in technology, 16.6 percentage points above the average. Ranmore Global Equity Fund plc holds 4.2%, 13.9 points below. Two other global equity funds sit above the average: Contrarius Global Equity Fund at 45.0% (26.9 points above) and GQG Partners Global Equity Fund at 39.9% (21.8 points above).
| Fund | Weight in technology | Against the average (18.1%) | Ongoing charge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contrarius Global Equity Fund | 45.0% | +26.9 points | 0.72% |
| GQG Partners Global Equity Fund | 39.9% | +21.8 points | 1.37% |
| Acadian Global Equity UCITS | 34.6% | +16.6 points | 0.87% |
| Ranmore Global Equity Fund plc | 4.2% | -13.9 points | 0.85% |
Three year return where we have it
Acadian Global Equity UCITS returned 79.1% over three years in pounds sterling. Contrarius Global Equity Fund returned 70.9%. We do not have a three year return on file for Ranmore or GQG in this snapshot, so we do not compare them here.
What this does and does not tell you
A technology weight tells you how much of a fund sits in one sector. It does not tell you whether the fund will do better or worse than the average, and a low weight is not a sign of caution any more than a high weight is a sign of conviction. It is a description of the portfolio on one date. Sector labels also differ between data providers, so we say “as FE classifies it”.
Ongoing charges here run from 0.72% to 1.37%. A researcher comparing these funds would want weight, cost and the three year record on one page, with the same share class for each.
Questions to ask of the table
A technology weight raises practical questions. How is technology defined, and does the fund’s own label differ from the data provider’s? How does the weight compare with the average on the same date? How current is the holdings data? And what sits in the rest of the portfolio, since a lower technology weight means more of something else? A fund with a very low weight and a fund with a very high one are not comparable on one number, so the weight is read alongside the sector breakdown and the three year record on the fund pages linked above. Cost and share class belong in the same review. The table also leaves out funds that do not report holdings to us, so it is a sample of the category, not all of it.
How to check it yourself
Open each fund page, look at the sector weights next to the category average, and confirm the share class before you compare returns.
How we calculated these figures
Sector weights come from each fund’s holdings as reported to FE fundinfo and are shown as at the date given. The average is the average for active global equity funds in our data on that date, taken from our weekly sector comparison. Sector labels are as FE classifies them and can differ between data providers.
Returns are FE month-end cumulative returns in pounds sterling, one share class per fund. Where a worst fall is shown, it is measured on daily prices over one window that is the same for every fund compared. Ongoing charges are the latest published figures. We have not adjusted or estimated any figure.
Source: FE fundinfo. Holdings and ongoing charges as stored at 5 October 2026. Past performance is not a reliable guide to future returns. Capital is at risk. This is information, not personal advice.
Past performance is not a guide to future returns. Capital is at risk.
Funds Benchmark provides research and tooling for institutional and private investors. Nothing in this note is investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any specific fund.