Both funds come from IShares. EFA is an equity ETF, while IEFA is an equity ETF. EFA and IEFA show very heavy overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 85.15%. They share 695 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by NL0010273215, GB0005405286, and GB0009895292.
Served from cache.
Quick Answer
Both funds come from IShares. EFA is an equity ETF, while IEFA is an equity ETF. EFA and IEFA show very heavy overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 85.15%. They share 695 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by NL0010273215, GB0005405286, and GB0009895292.
Data Freshness
Review the methodology for the overlap formula and refresh policy.
Compare another pair
Both funds come from IShares. EFA is an equity ETF, while IEFA is an equity ETF. EFA and IEFA are closely aligned. A large share of their portfolio weight is invested in the same companies, especially NL0010273215, GB0005405286, and GB0009895292, which means holding both is likely to feel similar to increasing the size of one core position.
Both funds come from IShares. EFA is an equity ETF, while IEFA is an equity ETF. Neither fund clearly dominates on breadth, so the practical difference is more about weighting, index construction, and cost. IEFA has the lower expense ratio, while EFA charges more for its exposure.
The overlap is driven by a relatively small set of large shared positions. The top three shared holdings account for 5.42% of the score, which means the result is heavily influenced by the biggest common weights rather than a long tail of tiny positions.
Because EFA and IEFA are closer in breadth, the better fit usually comes down to index methodology, issuer preference, and cost. IEFA has the lower expense ratio, while EFA charges more for its exposure.
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 5.42% of the full overlap score.
That helps show whether the score comes from a handful of giant shared positions or from a broader mix of common holdings.
Shared Sector Tilt
Sector tags are not consistently available for the biggest shared positions in this dataset, so this comparison leans more on the specific holdings than on sector labels.
These are the holdings contributing the most to the overlap score between EFA and IEFA.
| Holding | Name | EFA Wt. | IEFA Wt. | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NL0010273215 | ASML Holding N.V. | 2.58% | 2.21% | 2.21% |
| GB0005405286 | HSBC HOLDINGS PLC | 1.45% | 1.24% | 1.24% |
| GB0009895292 | ASTRAZENECA PLC | 1.35% | 1.16% | 1.16% |
| CH1499059983 | Roche Holding AG | 1.32% | 1.13% | 1.13% |
| CH0012005267 | Novartis AG | 1.29% | 1.11% | 1.11% |
| CH0038863350 | Nestle S.A. | 1.20% | 1.03% | 1.03% |
| GB00BP6MXD84 | SHELL PLC | 1.19% | 1.02% | 1.02% |
| DE0007236101 | Siemens Aktiengesellschaft | 1.04% | 0.89% | 0.89% |
| AU000000CBA7 | COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA | 0.97% | 0.83% | 0.83% |
| JP3902900004 | Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. | 0.93% | 0.80% | 0.80% |
Both funds come from IShares. EFA is an equity ETF, while IEFA is an equity ETF. The overlap exists because both funds allocate meaningful weight to the same holdings. In this dataset, the biggest shared drivers are NL0010273215, GB0005405286, and GB0009895292, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both EFA and IEFA is usually redundant unless you have a very specific reason to tilt toward their shared holdings. In most cases, one ETF is enough.
Go deeper
Portwise gives you full portfolio diagnostics — concentration risk, hidden risk scoring, drawdown analysis, and risk evolution tracking. Free to start.
Stay informed
Portfolio overlap alerts, new comparison data, and investing insights from the CG Corp team. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
A straightforward approach used by portfolio analysts.
For every stock that appears in both ETFs, we take the smaller of the two weights. Adding up all those minimums gives the total overlap percentage. A score of 100% means the two ETFs hold the exact same stocks in the same proportions.
Want the full explanation? Read the methodology page.