EFA is an equity ETF from IShares, while VXUS is an international equity ETF from Vanguard. EFA and VXUS show meaningful overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 38.36%. They share 545 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by GB0005405286, CH1499059983, and GB0009895292.
Freshly computed.
Quick Answer
EFA is an equity ETF from IShares, while VXUS is an international equity ETF from Vanguard. EFA and VXUS show meaningful overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 38.36%. They share 545 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by GB0005405286, CH1499059983, and GB0009895292.
Data Freshness
Review the methodology for the overlap formula and refresh policy.
Compare another pair
EFA is an equity ETF from IShares, while VXUS is an international equity ETF from Vanguard. EFA and VXUS overlap enough to matter, but they still bring different exposures to a portfolio. The overlap is concentrated in holdings such as GB0005405286, CH1499059983, and GB0009895292, which explains why the score lands at 38.36%.
EFA is an equity ETF from IShares, while VXUS is an international equity ETF from Vanguard. VXUS is the broader fund, while EFA is the more targeted sleeve. VXUS 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 5.38% of the score, which means the result is heavily influenced by the biggest common weights rather than a long tail of tiny positions.
If you want the broader portfolio building block, VXUS is usually the wider choice. If you want the more focused tilt, EFA is the narrower expression. VXUS has the lower expense ratio, while EFA charges more for its exposure.
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 5.38% 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 VXUS.
| Holding | Name | EFA Wt. | VXUS Wt. | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GB0005405286 | HSBC HOLDINGS PLC | 1.45% | 0.73% | 0.73% |
| CH1499059983 | Roche Holding AG | 1.32% | 0.67% | 0.67% |
| GB0009895292 | ASTRAZENECA PLC | 1.35% | 0.66% | 0.66% |
| GB00BP6MXD84 | SHELL PLC | 1.19% | 0.60% | 0.60% |
| DE0007236101 | Siemens Aktiengesellschaft | 1.04% | 0.51% | 0.51% |
| AU000000CBA7 | COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA | 0.97% | 0.49% | 0.49% |
| JP3633400001 | TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION | 0.84% | 0.47% | 0.47% |
| JP3902900004 | Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. | 0.93% | 0.46% | 0.46% |
| AU000000BHP4 | BHP GROUP LIMITED | 0.93% | 0.45% | 0.45% |
| ES0113900J37 | Banco Santander, S.A. | 0.82% | 0.42% | 0.42% |
EFA is an equity ETF from IShares, while VXUS is an international equity ETF from Vanguard. The overlap exists because both funds allocate meaningful weight to the same holdings. In this dataset, the biggest shared drivers are GB0005405286, CH1499059983, and GB0009895292, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both EFA and VXUS can still be reasonable, but you should expect some duplication. The decision comes down to whether the non-overlapping parts of each ETF are important enough for your strategy.
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.