IEFA vs IWR Overlap
Both funds come from IShares. IEFA is an equity ETF, while IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF. IEFA and IWR show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 0.07%. They share 2 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by QIA.DE and TIGO.
Served from cache.
Quick Answer
Both funds come from IShares. IEFA is an equity ETF, while IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF. IEFA and IWR show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 0.07%. They share 2 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by QIA.DE and TIGO.
- 0.07% weighted overlap across 2 shared holdings.
- The top three shared holdings explain 94.29% of the measured overlap.
- IEFA and IWR are closer in breadth than a broad-vs-niche ETF pair.
- The overlap is mostly explained by the top shared positions rather than sector labels alone.
- Holding both can still add materially different exposure.
Data Freshness
- IEFA holdings
- Mar 12, 2026
- IWR holdings
- Mar 12, 2026
- Overlap computed
- Mar 14, 2026
- Data source
- Financial Modeling Prep
Review the methodology for the overlap formula and refresh policy.
Compare another pair
About These ETFs
What Stands Out In This Comparison
What This Means
Both funds come from IShares. IEFA is an equity ETF, while IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF. IEFA and IWR do not own much of the same portfolio weight. That usually means you are combining different parts of the market, with only a small amount of duplication through names like QIA.DE and TIGO.
How They Differ
Both funds come from IShares. IEFA is an equity ETF, while IWR is a mid-cap U.S. 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 IWR charges more for its exposure.
What Drives The Overlap
The overlap is driven by a relatively small set of large shared positions. The top three shared holdings account for 94.29% of the score, which means the result is heavily influenced by the biggest common weights rather than a long tail of tiny positions.
When One May Fit Better
Because IEFA and IWR are closer in breadth, the better fit usually comes down to index methodology, issuer preference, and cost. IEFA has the lower expense ratio, while IWR charges more for its exposure.
Overlap Driver Snapshot
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 94.29% 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.
Top Shared Holdings
These are the holdings contributing the most to the overlap score between IEFA and IWR.
| Holding | Name | IEFA Wt. | IWR Wt. | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QIA.DE | QIAGEN NV | 0.04% | 0.07% | 0.04% |
| TIGO | MILLICOM INTERNATIONAL CELLULAR SA | 0.03% | 0.06% | 0.03% |
Why These ETFs Overlap
Both funds come from IShares. IEFA is an equity ETF, while IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF. The overlap exists because both funds allocate meaningful weight to the same holdings. In this dataset, the biggest shared drivers are QIA.DE and TIGO, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both IEFA and IWR can make sense if you want exposure to different sleeves of the market. The overlap is small enough that both funds may still improve diversification.
Related Comparisons
Frequently Asked Questions About IEFA and IWR
What is the overlap between IEFA and IWR?+
How many holdings do IEFA and IWR share?+
Is the IEFA and IWR overlap high?+
Why do IEFA and IWR overlap?+
Which ETF is broader, IEFA or IWR?+
How Overlap Is Calculated
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.