Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

EZU vs FENI: how they differ

EZU and FENI hold 6% of their weight in the same names, and FENI returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI Eurozone ETF and Fidelity Enhanced International ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, EZU and FENI hold 6% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions EZU and FENI both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingEZUFENI
INTESA SANPAOLO SPA1.22%0.95%
TOTALENERGIES SE2.25%0.65%
DANONE SA0.59%0.69%
LEGRAND SA0.58%0.64%
SAFRAN SA1.63%0.57%
ENGIE SA0.73%0.41%
VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT SA0.33%0.53%
CREDIT AGRICOLE SA0.26%0.45%
SAP SE2.44%0.24%
LVMH MOET HENNESSY LOUIS VUITTON SE1.76%0.15%
THALES SA0.34%0.14%
AXA SA0.99%0.13%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in EZUOnly in FENI
ASML Holding N.V. 8.10%ASML HOLDING NV 4.11%
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft 3.08%NESTLE SA 1.77%
Banco Santander, S.A. 2.37%SIEMENS AG 1.63%
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE 2.22%TOKYO ELECTRON LTD 1.46%
Allianz SE 2.18%ABB LTD 1.34%
Siemens Energy AG 1.89%HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 1.33%
Iberdrola, S.A. 1.89%IBERDROLA SA 1.23%
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. 1.72%BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA S.A 1.22%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

EZU and FENI on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
EZU
iShares MSCI Eurozone ETF
FENI
Fidelity Enhanced International ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesFidelity
What it isMSCI EurozoneEnhanced International
Total return, 1 year+18.0%+19.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+0.5 pts+1.9 pts
Expense ratio0.50%0.28%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%0.0%
Holdings226392

EZU in plain words

EZU is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI Eurozone. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.50% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 226 positions, with the top ten at 28.2%. It sat 3.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

FENI in plain words

FENI is an index equity fund tracking the Enhanced International. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +19.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.28% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 392 positions, with the top ten at 16.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, EZU or FENI?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, EZU returned +18.0% and FENI returned +19.4%, so FENI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, EZU or FENI?
EZU charges 0.50% a year and FENI charges 0.28%, so FENI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do EZU and FENI overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of EZU and 0% of FENI by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 6% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

EZU against FENI, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, EZU against FENI, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/EZU-FENI Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources