When ETFs were introduced to the market, these new products were made to track the performance of major equity indices such as the S&P 500, Nasdaq 100, Dow Jones Industrial, FTSE 100, EuroStoxx 50, etc. Over time other asset types such as bonds, commodities, money market, mixed assets, and alternatives were added to the product lineup. These additions made ETFs even more attractive for all kinds of investors.
While ETFs were invented and first launched in Canada, the new product type made its way to the U.S. soon after the first product was launched. As ETFs became popular investment vehicles used by all types of investors in North America, it was no surprise that the other regions were starting to recognize ETFs under their local regulations, enabling the launch of ETFs for local investors. Despite the success of ETFs in the U.S., it took roughly 10 years before passive ETFs became a global phenomenon.
Given the high (daily) transparency of the holdings within an ETF, a high percentage of active portfolio managers did not consider launching an ETF as distribution wrapper, as they didn’t want to display the changes in their portfolio in “real time” to avoid front running other investors. In other words, one could say, they didn’t want to give away their “secret sauce,” hence their intellectual property for portfolio construction.
As ETFs became widely used by professional and retail investors all over the world, the promoters of actively managed products started to campaign against passive products, as they only deliver the return of their underlying index minus the management fees. Conversely, academic research suggested that investors should invest the core parts of their portfolios at the lowest expense possible, since high annual (management) fees are massively reducing the overall returns of a portfolio. This is especially true during periods of market turmoil, when the respective products show a negative return. Additionally, academic research suggested that investors should use passive investment products in “efficient” markets, as active management could only deliver an insignificant additional return in a market where all information is priced in the valuation of a security immediately. Respectively, the same research found that investors should use actively managed products in markets with a low “market efficiency.” Last, but not least, some market observers publish regular research on the ability of active managers to outperform their underlying markets, which almost always show that the average active manager is not able to outperform its markets. Hence, an investor in the average actively managed fund is better off by buying a cheap passive product.
All these studies are positive for passive products in general and especially ETFs, since these products often have a lower management fee such as index funds, and have further driven the adoption of ETFs by investors around the globe and caused some investors to sell the actively managed funds in their portfolios and buy ETFs which give them access to the same markets instead.
These outflows accumulated and reached a point where they couldn’t be offset by the inflows into actively managed funds anymore. This was at the beginning especially true in the U.S. where actively managed funds, especially those investing in U.S. large caps, were heavily hit by outflows. At the same time, some promoters of actively managed mutual funds launched actively managed ETFs. These ETFs became quite soon a success story as investors swapped their exposure from expensive actively managed mutual funds to the cheaper actively managed ETFs. This doesn’t only save them money from the management fees; it also unlocked a tax advantage. As word about the advantages of ETFs spread, an increasing number of financial advisors, wealth managers, and self-directed investors in the U.S. started to swap actively managed mutual funds for ETFs with a similar investment objective.
Inspired and driven by the success of active ETFs in the U.S., ETF promoters around the globe started to launch active ETFs in their respective home markets.
This report evaluates the assets under management and fund flow trends in active ETFs in the global ETF industry. Nevertheless, it also gives an overview of the market size of the single regions, as well as their contribution to the overall growth of active ETFs globally.
Assets Under Management by Management Approach
The assets under management (AUM) in the global ETF industry stood at $22,832.1 bn at the end of September 2026. Despite all the news about the growth of actively managed ETFs, the industry is measured by the AUM dominated by passive ETFs ($19,906.4 bn), while actively managed ETFs held $2,925.7 bn in assets under management globally.
Graph 1: Market Share of the Overall Assets Under Management in the Global ETF Industry by Management Approach, September 30, 2026
Source: LSEG Lipper
Assets Under Management by Asset Type
A comparison of the asset mix of the assets under management held by passive ETFs with those of actively managed ETFs shows that investors seem to have quite different preferences when selecting actively managed ETFs or passive ETFs. The largest difference can be found in equity ETFs where passive ETFs hold $16,303.9 bn, or 81.90%, of the overall assets under management held in passive ETFs. Conversely, actively managed equity ETFs held $1,433.9 bn, or 49.01%, of the overall assets under management held in actively managed ETFs.
Another asset type with a large difference in market share is alternatives. While passive alternatives held $202.9 bn, or 1.02%, of the assets under management, their actively managed peers held $569.8 bn, or 19.48%, of the assets under management held by actively managed ETFs. Such a difference in preferences is expected in asset types like alternatives, since these products are considered a natural habitat for active management.
Graph 2: Assets Under Management in the Global ETF Industry by Management Approach, September 30, 2026 (in bn USD)
Source: LSEG Lipper
Bond ETFs are another asset type where actively managed ETFs ($742.7 bn) have a much higher market share (25.38%) of the assets under management in actively managed ETFs than their passive peers which hold higher AUM ($2,826.9 bn) but a lower market share (14.20%) of the overall assets under management held by passive ETFs. Such a high difference in favor of actively managed bond ETFs is somewhat to be expected, since investors seem to be skeptical when it comes to passive market capitalization weighted bond ETFs, since these products favor those issuers with the highest debt outstanding over those with high-quality balance sheets. Hence investors expect active managers to outperform in this segment.
For the other assets types the differences in market shares between actively managed and passive ETFs are not so significant, even as some of the differences may already indicate for which asset types the investors are preferring active management. With regard to this, it is not surprising that investors seem to prefer actively managed mixed-assets ETFs ($63.5 bn or 2.17%) over passive mixed-assets ETFs ($44.6 bn or 0.22%), as this asset type is also considered a natural habitat of active managers.
That said, it is surprising that investors prefer passive commodities ETFs ($451.3 bn or 2.27%) over actively managed commodities ETFs ($20.5 bn or 0.70%), since active managers should be able to deliver value added for the investors in this segment, especially as they might be able to optimize the rolling of futures and can act to a changing demand and supply situation for single commodities. Nevertheless, since the assets under management in the commodities segment are dominated by ETFs which invest in gold (and other precious metals), it is not surprising that investors seem to prefer passive over actively managed ETFs in this segment. Tracking the price of gold does in general not need active management.
By looking at these numbers, one needs to bear in mind that actively managed ETFs are a relatively new product type which is growing fast (Please see the fund flows section of this report for more details on this topic). Hence, the current relatively low market share of the overall assets under management in the global ETF industry is set to increase over time.
ETF Flows by Asset Type
The global ETF industry enjoyed strong estimated net inflows (+$2,253.0 bn) over the course of the first nine months of 2026. In fact, the inflows into ETFs over the course of the first nine months of 2026 are already higher than the overall estimated net flows over the course of the record year 2025.
In more detail, passive ETFs (+$1,577.8 bn) gathered the majority of the estimated net flows for 2026 so far, while actively managed ETFs were able to gather $675.2 bn. This means actively managed ETFs gathered 29.97% of the overall estimated net flows into ETFs, which means the market share of actively managed ETFs of the estimated net flows is much higher than their market share of the assets under management (12.81%). These numbers show that the segment of actively managed ETFs is a true growth segment, as their high market share of the estimated net flows will drive the market share of assets under management for this segment up in the future.
Graph 3: Estimated Net Sales (January 1 – September 30, 2026) by Asset Type and Management Approach (in bn USD)
Source: LSEG Lipper
Given the general fund flow trend in the global ETF industry over the course of the year 2026 so far, it is not surprising that the estimated net flows for equities, bonds, and commodities are dominated by passive ETFs, while actively managed ETFs were the leading product type for alternatives, money market, and mixed-assets ETFs.
As graph 3 indicates, the estimated net flows for actively managed ETFs were driven by equity ETFs (+$337.2 bn), followed by bond ETFs (+$192.4 bn), alternatives ETFs (+$98.8 bn), money market ETFs (+$28.6 bn), mixed-assets ETFs (+$15.5 bn), and commodities ETFs (+$4.4 bn). Conversely, other ETFs (-$1.9 bn), was the only asset type which witnessed outflows from actively managed ETFs over the course of the first nine months of 2026.
Graph 4: Estimated Net Sales for Actively Managed ETFs Globally by Asset Type, January 1 – September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
The estimated net flows in actively managed ETFs for the first nine months of 2026 show that investors globally are using actively managed ETFs as one would expect, since alternatives, money market, and mixed-assets ETFs enjoyed strong inflows. The only asset type which may lack the expectations was bonds, as passive bond ETFs gathered a larger share of the estimated net inflows into bonds than their actively managed peers.
Actively Managed ETFs – Assets Under Management by Lipper Global Classifications
In order to examine the segment of actively managed ETFs within 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 of this market segment within the global ETF industry. At the end of September, the segment of actively managed ETFs was split into 212 different Lipper Global Classifications.
Given the fact that the global ETF industry was split into 312 different Lipper Classification at the same point in time, it can be said that the segment of actively managed ETFs is currently offering investors a smaller number of asset classes, hence a smaller choice when it comes to the implementation of their asset allocation views into their portfolios.
The highest assets under management on classification level in the segment of actively managed ETFs at the end of September 2026 were held by ETFs classified as Equity U.S. ($534.0 bn), followed by Alternative Relative Value ($283.8 bn), Alternative Equity Leveraged ($212.4 bn), Equity Global ex U.S. ($182.9 bn), and Equity Global ($160.3 bn). These five classifications accounted for 46.95% of the overall assets under management held by actively managed ETFs globally, while the 10 largest classifications by assets under management combined accounted for 67.50%.
Graph 5: Ten Largest Lipper Global Classifications by Assets Under Management, September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
Overall, 18 of the 212 Lipper classifications each accounted for more than 1% of assets under management. In total, these 18 classifications accounted for $2,372.0 bn, or 81.07%, of the overall assets under management.
The Lipper classifications on the other side of the table showed some classifications in the segment of actively managed ETFs are quite low in assets and their constituents may face the risk of being closed in the near future. Despite the fact that a lot of these ETFs are quite new and might therefore hold only low assets under management, some of the products may lacking investor interest and might, therefore, not be profitable for their respective ETF promoters.
Graph 6: Ten Smallest Lipper Global Classifications by Assets Under Management, September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
Actively Managed ETFs – Fund Flows by Lipper Global Classifications
The net inflows of the 10 best-selling Lipper classifications for actively managed ETFs accounted for $451.3 bn. In line with the overall sales trend for September, equity peer groups (+$254.0 bn) gathered the majority of flows by asset type on the table of the 10 best-selling classifications by estimated net inflows for the 2026 so far. That said, compared with the concentration of the overall flows into ETFs globally or in the single regions, the 10 best-selling Lipper classifications for actively managed ETFs at a global level are somewhat more diversified. This flow pattern is expected, as the product choice (number of products and available classifications) is lower in the segment of actively managed ETFs. In addition, investors from different regions may have different preferences when it comes to their investments. Nevertheless, like for other global statistics in the ETF industry the table of the 10 best-selling Lipper classifications for actively managed ETFs 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, it was not surprising that Equity U.S. (+$101.0 bn) was the best-selling Lipper global classification for actively managed ETFs for 2026 so far. It was followed by Alternative Relative Value (+$68.0 bn), Equity Global ex U.S. (+$53.1 bn), Bond USD Medium Term (+$49.4 bn), and Equity Sector Information Technology (+$40.0 bn).
Graph 7: Ten Best- and Worst-Lipper Global Classifications by Estimated Net Sales, January 1- September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
Since money market is in general not considered a core asset type within the global ETF industry, it is surprising that Money Market USD (+$21.9 bn) made it on the table of the 10 best-selling classifications for actively managed ETFs globally.
More generally, these numbers show that the estimated net flows by classification for actively managed ETFs globally are somewhat concentrated. 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 and short-term asset allocation decisions. These products are made and, therefore, are easy to use for these purposes.
On the other side of the table, the 10 peer groups with the highest estimated net outflows for the month accounted for $3.1 bn in outflows.
Unclassified (-$1.9 bn) was the classification with the highest outflows for 2026 so far. It was bettered by Bond USD Government (-$0.4 bn), Bond Other (-$0.4 bn), Alternative Equity Leveraged (-$0.1 bn), and Commodity Energy (-$0.1 bn).
The names of the classifications on the list of the 10 Lipper classifications with the highest outflows for 2026 so far show that investors globally may have adjusted their portfolios according to their risk appetite.
Actively Managed ETFs – Assets Under Management by Promoters
A closer look at assets under management by promoters for actively managed ETFs globally shows that the concentration of the assets under management at the level of promoters of actively managed ETFs is much lower than for the global ETF industry in general.
Given the strong growth of actively managed ETFs, it is not surprising that there were 692 promoters active in this market segment over the course of 2026 so far.
The largest promoter for actively managed ETFs globally was Dimensional which accounted for ($354.8 bn), or 12.13%, of the overall assets under management of actively managed ETFs globally, ahead of the number-two promoter—JPMorgan ($322.9 bn)—and the number-three promoter—iShares (194.4 bn).
Graph 8: The 10 Largest ETF Promoters of Actively Managed ETFs by Assets Under Management, September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
The 10-top promoters accounted for AUM of $1,661.9 bn, or 56.80%, of the overall assets under management for actively managed ETFs in the global ETF industry. This meant, in turn, the other 682 ETF promoters which had registered at least one actively managed ETF for sale over the observation period accounted for only 43.20% of the overall assets under management. These numbers show that the assets under management at the promoter level are somewhat more diversified than in the single regions or domiciles.
It is not surprising that the list of the largest promoters of actively managed ETFs differs from the list of the largest ETFs promoters globally, since some of the dominating players of passive ETFs are focussing their activities rather on that market segment than on actively managed ETFs.
That said, it might be somewhat surprising that there is no ETF promoter from the Asia-Pacific region on the table of the largest promoters of actively managed ETFs. This might be caused by the high fragmentation of the ETF markets in the Asia-Pacific region, since most of the ETF promoters in the Asia-Pacific region act quite local.
Actively Managed ETFs – ETF Flows by Promoters
Given the concentration of the assets under management at the promoter level, it was not surprising that seven of the 10 largest promoters of actively managed ETFs by assets under management were among the 10-top selling ETF promoters for the year so far. iShares was the best-selling ETF promoter for actively managed ETFs in the global ETF industry for the year so far (+$66.4 bn), ahead of JPMorgan (+$60.5 bn) and Capital Group (+$46.5 bn).
Graph 9: Ten Best-Selling ETF Promoters of Actively Managed ETFs, January 1 – September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
The flows of the 10-top promoters accounted for estimated net inflows of $371.8 bn. As for the overall flow trend over the course of 2026 so far, it was clear that some of the 692 promoters (131) faced estimated net outflows (-$29.4 bn in total) over the course of the year so far.
Assets Under Management by Region
Since North America ($17,038.4 bn) is the region with the highest assets under management in the global ETF industry, it is no surprise that it is also the region with the highest assets under management in actively managed ETFs ($2,567.9 bn) at the end of September. From an actively managed ETFs perspective, they were followed by actively managed ETFs domiciled in Indo-Pacific Region ($208.2 bn), Europe ($147.0 bn), Africa ($1.4 bn), and South and Central America ($1.1 bn), while other domiciles ($0.0 bn) do not play a role in the segment of actively managed ETFs.
Graph 10: Assets Under Management in the Global ETF Industry by Region and Management Approach – September 30, 2026 (in bn USD)
Source: LSEG Lipper
These numbers show that the assets under management in actively managed ETFs show a different concentration than in the global ETF industry overall. These numbers also show that actively managed ETFs are used by investors around the globe, with a high concentration of assets under management in a few regions/domiciles.
Estimated Net Flows by Region
By reviewing the estimated flows into actively managed ETFs 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. This 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 and ETFs 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 11: Estimated Net Flows in the Global ETF Industry by Region and Management Approach, January 1 – September 30, 2026 (in bn USD)
Source: LSEG Lipper
As one may expect from the assets under management, ETFs domiciled in North America (+$1,662.8 bn) enjoyed the highest estimated net inflows of all regions over the course of the year so far. The strong inflows into ETFs in general in North America is also reflected in the inflows into actively managed ETFs, as actively managed ETFs domiciled in North America (+$585.5 bn) enjoyed the highest inflows for 2026 so far. They were followed by actively managed ETFs domiciled in the Indo-Pacific region (+$50.3 bn), Europe (+$38.5 bn), South and Central America (+$0.5 bn), and Africa (+$0.4 bn), while the other regions ($0.0 bn) played no role in the segment of actively managed ETFs.
As to be expected from the split of the assets under management by region, the ranking of the best-selling regions for actively managed ETFs differs from the ranking for the best-selling region for ETFs overall. This shows that investors in the different regions may have in general a different appetite for actively managed ETFs.
Assets Under Management by Domicile
To investigate the assets under management held by actively managed ETFs by region further, it makes sense to analyze the assets under management by domicile. As of the end of September, the U.S. was the largest single-country domicile for actively managed ETFs ($2,350.8 bn) of the 22 ETF domiciles covered in this report, followed by Canada ($217.1 bn), Ireland ($136.5 bn), South Korea ($96.9 bn), and Australia ($54.6 bn). These five ETF domiciles account for assets under management of $2,856.0 bn, or 97.62%, 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 was written.
Graph 12: Ten Largest ETF Domiciles for Actively Managed ETFs by Assets Under Management – September 30, 2026 (in bn USD)
Source: LSEG Lipper
These numbers show that assets under management in the global ETF industry are dominated by a small number of domiciles. Obviously, this concentration is at least partly 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.
Nevertheless, the list of the largest 10 domiciles for actively managed ETFs is quite different to the list of 10 largest ETF domiciles globally. In addition, the list of the 10 largest domiciles for actively managed ETFs explains why the Indo-Pacific region holds higher assets under management in actively managed ETFs than Europe. With regard to this, it looks like investors from the Indo-Pacific region do use actively managed ETFs more often in their portfolios than their European peers.
Estimated Net Flows by Domicile
To add more detail to the estimated net flow numbers, it makes sense to shed light on the single domiciles. The U.S. (+$538.4 bn) was, as to be expected, the single fund domicile with the highest estimated net inflows into actively managed ETFs for the year so far. It was followed by Canada (+$47.2 bn), Ireland (+$34.4 bn), Taiwan (+$24.1 bn), and South Korea (+$18.0 bn).
Graph 13: The 10 ETF Domiciles with the Highest Estimated Net Inflows into Actively Managed ETFs, January 1 – September 30, 2026 (in bn USD)
Source: LSEG Lipper
The list of the 10 best-selling domiciles for actively managed ETFs does an even better job of showing that ETFs are truly a global phenomenon since it shows that investors around the globe are using actively managed ETFs to implement their asset allocation views in portfolios. That said, the table does also show that the demand for actively managed differs not only from region to region, but also from domicile to domicile. Hence from one local market to another.
This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute any investment advice.
The views expressed are the views of the author, not necessarily those of Lipper or LSEG.
