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

FENI vs IEFA: how they differ

FENI and IEFA hold 11% of their weight in the same names, and FENI returned more over the year.

Fidelity Enhanced International ETF and iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FENI and IEFA hold 11% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FENI and IEFA both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFENIIEFA
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC1.33%1.25%
SHELL PLC1.00%1.03%
ASTRAZENECA PLC0.82%1.17%
TOTALENERGIES SE0.65%0.73%
ROLLS-ROYCE HOLDINGS PLC1.09%0.54%
SAFRAN SA0.57%0.45%
INTESA SANPAOLO SPA0.95%0.38%
BAE SYSTEMS PLC0.51%0.33%
LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC0.95%0.32%
NATIONAL GRID PLC0.30%0.35%
NATWEST GROUP PLC0.72%0.25%
SAP SE0.24%0.69%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FENIOnly in IEFA
ASML HOLDING NV 4.11%ASML Holding N.V. 2.23%
NESTLE SA 1.77%Novartis AG 1.11%
SIEMENS AG 1.63%Nestle S.A. 1.03%
TOKYO ELECTRON LTD 1.46%Siemens Aktiengesellschaft 0.90%
ABB LTD 1.34%COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA 0.84%
IBERDROLA SA 1.23%Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. 0.80%
BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA S.A 1.22%BHP GROUP LIMITED 0.80%
UBS GROUP AG 1.22%TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION 0.72%

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 Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.

FENI and IEFA on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FENI
Fidelity Enhanced International ETF
IEFA
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityiShares
What it isEnhanced InternationalCore MSCI EAFE
Total return, 1 year+19.4%+18.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.9 pts+0.5 pts
Expense ratio0.28%0.07%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%0.1%
Holdings3922632

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%.

IEFA in plain words

IEFA is an index equity fund tracking the Core MSCI EAFE. 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 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2632 positions, with the top ten at 11.5%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FENI or IEFA?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FENI returned +19.4% and IEFA returned +18.0%, so FENI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FENI or IEFA?
FENI charges 0.28% a year and IEFA charges 0.07%, so IEFA is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FENI and IEFA overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of FENI and 0% of IEFA by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 11% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources