The global ETF industry enjoyed strong inflows over the course of the first half of 2026, a period which was dominated by macroeconomic themes. Geopolitics, inflation, fiscal sustainability, and monetary policy were driving the markets. Within this environment global equities finished the period close to record highs, and bond markets experienced significant volatility as investors reassessed inflation risks and the outlook for interest rates.
The biggest catalyst was the conflict in Iran and the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. The closure of a route that carries a significant share of global oil exports sent energy prices sharply higher during the spring and reignited concerns that inflation would prove more persistent than previously expected. The resulting rise in oil, transport and insurance costs affected economies across the globe, forcing investors to re-evaluate the trajectory of growth and inflation.
Political developments helped reverse part of that shock by June. Diplomatic progress between the United States and Iran led to an agreement that reopened the Strait of Hormuz, triggering a steep decline in oil prices and easing fears of a prolonged supply disruption. Brent crude retreated toward pre-conflict levels, improving investor sentiment and supporting a broad rally in risk assets.
Monetary policy diverged substantially across the major economies. The Federal Reserve was at the center of another important political development during the first half of 2026: the arrival of Kevin Warsh as the new Fed Chair. Warsh succeeded Jerome Powell in May, marking the beginning of a new chapter for U.S. monetary policy. Despite the leadership change, the Fed spent most of the period holding interest rates in the 3.50% to 3.75% range as policymakers grappled with the inflationary effects of the Middle East energy shock and a still resilient labor market. By mid-year, investors had largely abandoned expectations of imminent rate cuts and instead focused on the possibility that U.S. interest rates would remain elevated for longer than previously anticipated. The shift contributed to higher Treasury yields and periodic volatility in both bond and equity markets.
The European Central Bank moved in the opposite direction. After initially pausing its easing cycle, the ECB became increasingly concerned about renewed inflationary pressures linked to higher energy costs. In June it raised rates, signalling that price stability had once again become its primary concern despite weaker growth prospects across parts of the euro area. The move marked one of the most important policy shifts of the year and underscored the differing inflation dynamics between Europe and the United States.
Japan also moved away from ultra-loose monetary policy. The Bank of Japan continued its normalization process and raised rates to levels not seen since the mid-1990s. Higher inflation and concern over yen weakness encouraged policymakers to continue tightening, ending an era in which Japan had stood apart from the global rate cycle.
Fiscal policy remained a significant concern throughout the period. As bond yields rose in response to inflation concerns and central-bank policy uncertainty, debt servicing costs increased across major economies. Investors increasingly scrutinized government borrowing plans, particularly in the United States and Europe, contributing to periodic bouts of bond market volatility.
Equity markets proved remarkably resilient. Artificial intelligence remained the dominant investment theme, although leadership shifted from the largest technology platforms toward semiconductor, memory, and infrastructure providers benefiting from AI spending. European shares outperformed during periods when oil prices fell, while U.S. equities were supported by strong corporate earnings and persistent investor demand for technology-related assets. By the end of June, many major indices were trading near record highs despite the geopolitical turbulence earlier in the year.
Bond markets told a more complicated story. Sovereign yields climbed sharply during the energy shock before stabilizing as oil prices retreated. Investors remained cautious, given continued inflation uncertainty, fiscal pressures, and increasingly divergent central bank policies. Global government bonds delivered mixed returns, while corporate credit generally held up better thanks to resilient economic growth and healthy corporate balance sheets.
By the end of H1 2026, investors had become cautious over sector and single company risks but were still in risk-on mode. The focus shifted to whether inflation would continue to moderate and whether central banks could engineer a soft landing while governments grappled with growing fiscal burdens.
Assets Under Management by Asset Type
From the perspective of the global ETF industry, the performance of the underlying markets led, in combination with the estimated net flows, to increasing assets under management (from $18,690.6 bn as of December 31, 2025, to $22,097.5 bn at the end of June 2026) over the course of the first half of 2026. At a closer look, the increase in assets under management of $3,406.9 bn for H1 2026 was driven by the performance of the underlying markets (+$1,908.0 bn), while the estimated net inflows added $1,499.0 bn to the assets under management.
Graph 1: Growth in Assets Under Management in the Global ETF Industry by Asset Type, January 1, 1991 – June 30, 2026 (in bn USD)
Source: LSEG Lipper
As for the overall structure of the global ETF industry, it was not surprising equity ETFs ($17,199.1 bn) held the majority of assets at the end of June, followed by bond ETFs ($3,492.0 bn), alternatives ETFs ($717.6 bn), commodities ETFs ($431.8 bn), money market ETFs ($140.7 bn), mixed-assets ETFs ($99.4 bn), and “other” ETFs ($16.9 bn).
Graph 2: Market Share, Assets Under Management in the Global ETF Industry by Asset Type, June 30, 2026
Source: LSEG Lipper
Taking the overall market environment into account, it is not surprising that the overall assets under management, as well as the assets under management for all asset types with the exception of alternatives, commodities, and “other” ETFs reached an (month end) all-time high at the end of June.
ETF Flows by Asset Type
The global ETF industry saw strong inflows (+$1,499.0 bn) over the course of H1 2026. The flow pattern over the course of the first quarter shows that the inflows into ETFs slowed down as the geopolitical tensions in the Middle East intensified over the course of March but returned to their former level from April onwards.
Graph 3: Monthly Estimated Net Sales, January 1, 2026 – June 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
The impressive estimated monthly net flows might be seen as proof that the acceptance and adoption of ETFs by investors around the globe has been further increased over the course of H1 2026.
The inflows in the global ETF industry for H1 2026 were driven by equity ETFs (+$1,021.7 bn), followed by bond ETFs (+$362.7 bn), alternatives ETFs (+$55.7 bn), money market ETFs (+$37.1 bn), mixed-assets ETFs (+$20.4 bn), and commodities ETFs (+$4.1 bn). On the other side of the table, “other” ETFs (-$2.6 bn) faced outflows for the month.
Graph 4: Estimated Net Sales by Asset Type, January 1 – June 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
Given the general market environment, it was somewhat surprising to see that the estimated net inflows into ETFs were led by equity ETFs over the course of H1 2026 by such a high margin. Nevertheless, the overall fund flows picture does in general look like one would expect given the overall fund flow and market trends in the global ETF industry.
As graph 5 shows, bond and equity ETFs enjoyed inflows in each of the six months of the first half of 2026. The graph also shows that the inflows in bond and equity ETFs were stable over the course of January and February and slowed down over the course of March. The flows for equity returned from April to a stable pattern on a high level for the rest of H1 2026. Conversely, the inflows into bond ETFs slowed further down in April before returning to a stable pattern on the same level as before the slowdown. The slowdown in estimated net flows over the course of March was mainly driven by the start of the war in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the flows in equity ETFs stayed positive, which once again showed the resilience of ETF flows in times of market turmoil. This might be seen as a sign that global ETF investors like the liquidity, tradability, and transparency of ETFs, especially in times when markets are rough.
Graph 5: Monthly and Cumulative Estimated Net Sales by Asset Type, January 1, 2026 – June 30, 2026 (USD billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
These flows showed that the adoption of ETFs by all kind of investors is further increasing despite the fact that these products are already household products in many countries around the globe and used by a large percentage of investors in these countries.
Assets Under Management by Lipper Global Classifications
In order to examine the global ETF industry in further detail, a review of the Lipper global classifications will lead to more insights on the structure and concentration of assets within the global ETF industry. At the end of June, the global ETF market was split into 306 different Lipper Global Classifications. The highest assets under management at the end of the month were held by ETFs classified as Equity U.S. ($7,778.2 bn), followed by Equity Global ex U.S. ($1,341.5 bn), Equity U.S. Small & Mid Cap ($1,216.5 bn), Equity Global ($1,022.2 bn), and Equity Japan ($907.1 bn). These five classifications accounted for 55.51% of the overall assets under management in the global ETF industry, while the 10 largest classifications by assets under management combined accounted for 69.88%.
Overall, 18 of the 306 Lipper classifications each accounted for more than 1% of assets under management. In total, these 18 classifications accounted for $17,752.8 bn, or 80.34%, of the overall assets under management.
Graph 6: Ten Largest Lipper Global Classifications by Assets Under Management, June 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
The Lipper classifications on the other side of the table showed some funds in the global ETF market are quite low in assets and their constituents may face the risk of being closed in the near future. They are obviously lacking investor interest and might, therefore, not be profitable for their respective fund promoters.
Graph 7: Ten Smallest Lipper Global Classifications by Assets Under Management, June 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
ETF Flows by Lipper Global Classifications
The net inflows of the 10 best-selling Lipper classifications for H1 2026 accounted for $983.7 bn. In line with the overall sales trend for June, equity peer groups (+$783.3 bn) gathered the majority of flows by asset type on the table of the 10 best-selling classifications by estimated net inflows for the first half of 2026. That said, compared with the concentration of flows for the single regions or domiciles, the 10 best-selling Lipper classifications are more diversified at the global level. This flow pattern is expected, as investors from the different regions may have different preferences when it comes to their investments. Nevertheless, the table of the 10 best-selling Lipper classifications is heavily impacted by the estimated net flows from the U.S.
Given the overall fund flow trend in the global ETF industry and the dominance of the U.S. as the leading market for ETFs and largest stock market in the world, it was not surprising that Equity U.S. (+$359.6 bn) was the best-selling Lipper global classification for H1 2026. It was followed by Equity Global (+$116.2 bn), Equity by Equity Global ex U.S. (+$109.1 bn), Equity Sector Information Technology (+$95.1 bn), and Bond USD Medium Term (+$74.4 bn).
More generally, these numbers showed the global ETF segment is somewhat concentrated when it comes to the estimated net flows by classification. Generally speaking, one would expect the flows into ETFs to be concentrated, even as investors around the globe may have different preferences, the main trends are normally global investment trends and investors use ETFs to implement their strategic market views as well as their short-term asset allocation decisions. These products are made and, therefore, are easy to use for these purposes.
Graph 8: Ten Best- and Worst-Lipper Global Classifications by Estimated Net Sales, January 1- June 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
On the other side of the table, the 10 peer groups with the highest estimated net outflows for H1 2026 accounted for $41.2 bn in outflows.
Alternative Equity Leveraged (-$9.6 bn) was the classification with the highest outflows for H1 2026. It was bettered by Equity China (-$6.9 bn), Equity Sector Financials (-$5.5 bn), Commodity Precious Metals (-$3.9 bn), and Alternative Cryptocurrency (-$3.2 bn).
As the bottom of the table is dominated by non-core classifications, this may indicate that ETF investors around the globe sell riskier assets to align their portfolios to the current market environment. They may also have taken profits from gold and other precious metals to reduce the overall risk in their portfolios and to generate a cash buffer.
Assets Under Management by Promoters
A closer look at assets under management by promoters in the global ETF industry also showed high concentration, with only 239 of the 832 ETF promoters covered in this report holding assets at or above $1.0 bn, totalling $21,984.1 bn at the end of June. The largest ETF promoter in the global ETF industry—iShares ($6,332.2 bn)—accounted for 28.66% of the overall assets under management, ahead of the number-two promoter—Vanguard ($4,966.5 bn)—and the number-three promoter—State Street SPDR ($2,247.1 bn).
Graph 9: The 10 Largest ETF Promoters by Assets Under Management, June 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
The 10-top promoters accounted for AUM of $17,219.9 bn, or 77.93%, of the overall assets under management in the global ETF industry. This meant, in turn, the other 822 ETF promoters which had registered at least one ETF for sale over the observation period accounted for only 22.07% of the overall assets under management. These numbers show that the assets under management at the promoter level in the global ETF industry are somewhat more diversified than in the single regions or domiciles.
It is not surprising that the global players are dominating the table of the 10-largest ETF promoters by assets under management. That said, it is somewhat surprising that there is only one ETF promoter from the Asia-Pacific region on this table. This might be caused by the high fragmentation of the ETF markets in the region, since most of the ETF promoters in the Asia-Pacific region act quite local.
ETF Flows by Promoters
Since the global ETF industry is highly concentrated with regard to the assets under management by promoter, it was not surprising that eight of the 10 largest promoters by assets under management were among the 10-top selling ETF promoters for June. iShares was the best-selling ETF promoter in the global ETF industry for the month (+$331.4 bn), ahead of Vanguard (+$307.0 bn) and State Street SPDR (+$93.2 bn).
Graph 10: Ten Best-Selling ETF Promoters, January 1 – June 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
The flows of the 10-top promoters accounted for estimated net inflows of $989.1 bn. As for the overall fund flow trend over the course of H1 2026, it was clear that some of the 845 promoters (189) faced estimated net outflows (-$44.3 bn in total) over the course of H1 2026.
Assets Under Management by Region
ETFs domiciled in North America ($16,513.5 bn) held the highest assets under management in the global ETF industry at the end of June. They were followed by ETFs domiciled in Europe ($3,543.7 bn), ETFs domiciled in the Indo-Pacific region ($1,991.8 bn), ETFs domiciled in South and Central America ($31.6 bn), ETFs domiciled in Africa ($16.0 bn), while other domiciles held ($1.0 bn) in assets under management.
Graph 11: Assets Under Management in the Global ETF Industry by Region – June 30, 2026 (in bn USD)
Source: LSEG Lipper
These numbers show that the global ETF industry is a truly global industry with a high concentration of assets under management in a few regions/domiciles.
By looking at these numbers, one needs to bear in mind that the assets under management for the Indo Pacific region are understated since China is not included in these numbers. This is caused by the fact that Chinese ETF promoters do not report the respective numbers in a timely manner to be included in this report.
Estimated Net Flows by Region
By reviewing the estimated flows in the global ETF industry by fund domicile and the respective regions, one needs to bear in mind that some domiciles have specific advantages or disadvantages when it comes to ETF distribution. The U.S. is, for example, a single market and can take profit from the size of the overall market, while in Europe every market is or at least can be an ETF domicile, which means that the local markets are much smaller.
That said, the member states of the European Union (EU) have established a fund regulation (Undertakings in Collective Investments and Transferable Securities, or UCITS) which enables the fund and ETF industry to cross-list all products which are registered for sale in one EU country into another EU country. Since UCITS has become such a well-recognized regulatory standard for mutual funds and ETFs, some countries in South and Central America, as well in Asia, allow UCITS funds to be cross-listed and sold to local investors. It is fair to say that there is no other regulatory framework available that allows funds to be distributed in various countries around the globe.
Other mutual recognition agreements, such as those between Hong Kong and China or Hong Kong and Taiwan, are only bilateral and have no global reach. This means that the estimated flows for European ETFs also include flows from South and Central America, as well as from Asia.
Graph 12: Estimated Net Flows in the Global ETF Industry by Region, January 1 – June 30, 2026 (in bn USD)
Source: LSEG Lipper
As one may expect from the assets under management, ETFs domiciled in North America (+$1,111.4 bn) enjoyed the highest estimated net inflows over the course of H1 2026. They were followed by ETFs domiciled in Europe (+$259.5 bn), the Indo-Pacific region (+$124.1 bn), South and Central America (+$3.5 bn), and Africa (+$0.5 bn). On the other hand, ETFs domiciled in the other regions (-$0.01 bn) faced outflows.
By looking at these numbers, one needs to bear in mind that the assets under management and, therefore, the respective fund flows for the Indo Pacific region are understated since China is not included in these numbers. This is caused by the fact that Chinese ETF promoters do not report the respective numbers in time to be included in this report.
Assets Under Management by Domicile
To investigate the concentration by region further, it makes sense to analyze the assets under management by domicile. As of the end of June, the U.S. was the largest single-country ETF domicile ($15,817.5 bn) of the 41 ETF domiciles covered in this report, followed by Ireland ($2,591.3 bn), Japan ($845.0 bn), Canada ($696.0 bn), and Luxembourg ($652.2 bn). These five ETF domiciles account for assets under management of $20,601.9 bn, or 93.23%, of the overall assets under management in the global ETF industry.
By looking at these numbers, one needs to bear in mind that China is excluded from this report, since there is no data on the assets under management from ETFs domiciled in China available at the time this report has been written.
Graph 13: Ten Largest ETF Domiciles by Assets Under Management – June 30, 2026 (in bn USD)
Source: LSEG Lipper
These numbers show that the assets under management in the global ETF industry are dominated by a small number of domiciles. Obviously, this concentration is caused by the time period over which ETFs are available in the single domiciles, as well the overall market size of these domiciles. That said, Ireland and Luxembourg are true global ETF hubs since ETFs registered under the UCITS regulation can be sold in various markets around the world.
Estimated Net Flows by Domicile
To add more detail to the estimated net flow numbers, it makes sense to shed a light on the single domiciles. The U.S. (+$1,019.3 bn) was, as to be expected, the single fund domicile with the highest estimated net inflows for H1 2026. It was followed by Ireland (+$194.1 bn), Canada (+$92.1 bn), Luxembourg (+$52.5 bn), and South Korea (+$49.9 bn).
Graph 14: The 10 ETF Domiciles with the Highest Estimated Net Inflows, January 1 – June 30, 2026 (in bn USD)
Source: LSEG Lipper
The list of the 10 best-selling domiciles does an even better job of showcasing that ETFs are truly a global phenomenon since it shows that investors around the globe are using ETFs to implement their asset allocation views in their portfolios.
The views expressed are the views of the author, not necessarily those of LSEG.
This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute any investment advice.
