EFA vs IEFA: Complete Comparison

iShares MSCI EAFE ETF vs iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF — overlap, correlation, performance & risk analysis

Holdings Overlap
0.00%
Very Low Overlap
Shared Holdings
0 of 10
Complete portfolio analysis
Calculation Method
Min Weight
Weighted intersection

Visual Overlap

EFA
IEFA
0.0%
EFA Only
Overlap
IEFA Only

Price Performance

Historical price comparison over 3M

EFA Return
+3.87%
IEFA Return
+4.28%
Winner
IEFA
+0.41%
Max Drawdown
EFA: -11.4%
IEFA: -11.5%
EFA Volatility (annualized)20.03%
IEFA Volatility (annualized)19.92%

📈 Comparison

Metric
EFA
IEFA
1 Year Return
+14.5%
N/A
3 Year Return
+5.2%
N/A
5 Year Return
+8.5%
N/A
Volatility
19.50%
undefined%
Expense Ratio
0.32%
0.50%
⚠️ Past performance does not guarantee future results. Data may be delayed.

⚔️ Comparison

12 - 0

🏆 EFA wins this comparison

Key Factors

💰 Expense Ratio
EFA:0.32%
vs
IEFA:0.50%
🎯 Number of Holdings
EFA:827 holdings
vs
IEFA:10 holdings
Additional Metrics (3)
⚖️ Concentration Risk
EFA: 1.6% in top 10
IEFA: 14.3% in top 10
📊 Assets Under Management
EFA: $75B ✓
IEFA: $5B
🔍 Uniqueness vs SPY
EFA: 100.0% unique
IEFA: 100.0% unique

Bottom line: EFA wins with better expense ratio and number of holdings. Consider EFA for your portfolio, but IEFA is still a solid choice if you prefer its specific advantages.

Detailed Overlap Analysis

0 shared holdings representing 0.0% portfolio overlap

Top Shared Holdings

#StockEFA WeightIEFA WeightOverlap
0
Shared Stocks
0.0%
Total Overlap
0
Sectors Represented

Top Holdings Only in EFA

Unique to EFA

Scroll horizontally to see all data
SymbolNameWeight
RACERACE0.24%
SESE0.24%
NBISNBIS0.22%
ALCALC0.20%
WDSWDS0.16%

Top Holdings Only in IEFA

Unique to IEFA

Scroll horizontally to see all data
SymbolNameWeight
NOVO-B.CONovo Nordisk A/S2.15%
ASML.ASASML Holding NV2.08%
NESN.SWNestle SA1.62%
AZN.LAstraZeneca plc1.45%
SHEL.LShell plc1.38%

Price Correlation

How We Calculate Overlap

We use the minimum weight method with normalization to calculate portfolio overlap:

Overlap = Σ min(weightA, weightB) for each shared holding

Normalization: Holdings weights are normalized to sum to 100% before comparison. This ensures accurate overlap calculations even when analyzing partial holdings data (e.g., top 50 positions).

Conservative approach: We consider only the smaller allocation for each shared position, giving you a realistic view of true portfolio overlap.

📊 This analysis is based on publicly available holdings data. For the most current and complete holdings information, please visit the official ETF provider websites.

Want deeper analysis on EFA or IEFA?

Complement your EigenDex analysis with these research tools.

Some links may be affiliate links. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support EigenDex as a free tool. We only recommend tools we believe provide genuine value to investors.

Compare More ETFs