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

FXI vs IEMG: how they differ

FXI and IEMG hold 8% of their weight in the same names, and IEMG returned more over the year.

iShares China Large-Cap ETF and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FXI and IEMG hold 8% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FXI and IEMG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFXIIEMG
Tencent Holdings Limited7.72%2.38%
Alibaba Group Holding Limited8.66%1.83%
XIAOMI CORPORATION5.41%0.42%
MEITUAN4.79%0.33%
BYD COMPANY LIMITED4.09%0.29%
NETEASE, INC.3.56%0.29%
BAIDU, INC.2.83%0.26%
JD.COM, INC.3.00%0.24%
PetroChina Company Limited2.69%0.20%
TRIP.COM GROUP LIMITED2.69%0.20%
China Life Insurance Company Limited2.30%0.19%
Zijin Mining Group Company Limited2.32%0.17%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FXIOnly in IEMG
Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co.,Ltd 0.14%Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 12.52%
SK hynix Inc. 5.83%
MediaTek Inc. 1.42%
DELTA ELECTRONICS, INC. 1.03%
HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD. 0.79%
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 0.74%
HDFC BANK LIMITED 0.61%
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 0.58%

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 May 31, 2026.

FXI and IEMG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FXI
iShares China Large-Cap ETF
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isChina Large-CapCore MSCI Emerging Markets
Total return, 1 year−13.8%+30.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−31.3 pts+13.1 pts
Expense ratio0.73%0.09%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%0.0%
Holdings522695

FXI in plain words

FXI is an index equity fund tracking the China Large-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −13.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.73% 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 52 positions, with the top ten at 56.6%. It sat 28.5% below its high of Feb 17, 2021 on Sep 11, 2026.

IEMG in plain words

IEMG is an index equity fund tracking the Core MSCI Emerging Markets. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +30.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.09% 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 2695 positions, with the top ten at 34.1%. It sat 4.0% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FXI or IEMG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FXI returned −13.8% and IEMG returned +30.6%, so IEMG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FXI or IEMG?
FXI charges 0.73% a year and IEMG charges 0.09%, so IEMG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FXI and IEMG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of FXI and 0% of IEMG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 8% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources