Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IDEV vs IEFA: how they differ
IDEV and IEFA hold 86% of their weight in the same names, and IDEV returned more over the year.
iShares Core MSCI International Developed Markets ETF and iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IDEV and IEFA hold 86% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IDEV | IEFA |
|---|---|---|
| ASML Holding N.V. | 1.95% | 2.23% |
| HSBC HOLDINGS PLC | 1.09% | 1.25% |
| ASTRAZENECA PLC | 1.02% | 1.17% |
| Novartis AG | 0.97% | 1.11% |
| SHELL PLC | 0.90% | 1.03% |
| Nestle S.A. | 0.90% | 1.03% |
| Siemens Aktiengesellschaft | 0.78% | 0.90% |
| COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA | 0.73% | 0.84% |
| Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. | 0.71% | 0.80% |
| BHP GROUP LIMITED | 0.70% | 0.80% |
| TOTALENERGIES SE | 0.64% | 0.73% |
| TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION | 0.63% | 0.72% |
| Only in IDEV | Only in IEFA |
|---|---|
| ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 0.87% | Getinge AB (publ) 0.02% |
| THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK 0.63% | The Hyakugo Bank, Ltd. 0.01% |
| SHOPIFY INC. 0.52% | AT & S Austria Technologie & Systemtechn 0.01% |
| Enbridge Inc. 0.42% | KELLER GROUP PLC 0.01% |
| BANK OF MONTREAL 0.38% | DOF GROUP ASA 0.01% |
| CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE 0.36% | KENON HOLDINGS LTD. 0.01% |
| CANADIAN NATURAL RESOURCES LIMITED 0.34% | North Pacific Bank,Ltd. 0.01% |
| THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA 0.33% | 4DMedical Ltd 0.01% |
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.
| IDEV iShares Core MSCI International Developed Markets ETF | IEFA iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Core MSCI International Developed Markets | Core MSCI EAFE |
| Total return, 1 year | +18.7% | +18.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +1.2 pts | +0.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.07% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Holdings | 2268 | 2632 |
IDEV in plain words
IDEV is an index equity fund tracking the Core MSCI International Developed Markets. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% 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 2268 positions, with the top ten at 10.2%.
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, IDEV or IEFA?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IDEV returned +18.7% and IEFA returned +18.0%, so IDEV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IDEV or IEFA?
- IDEV charges 0.04% a year and IEFA charges 0.07%, so IDEV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IDEV and IEFA overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IDEV and 0% of IEFA by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 86% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, IDEV against IEFA, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IDEV-IEFA Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources