Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IEMG vs VEA: how they differ
IEMG and VEA hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and IEMG returned more over the year.
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF and Vanguard Developed Markets Index Fund.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IEMG and VEA hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IEMG | VEA |
|---|---|---|
| Alteogen Inc | 0.07% | 0.03% |
| Zijin Gold International Co Ltd | 0.03% | 0.01% |
| CD Projekt SA | 0.03% | 0.01% |
| Grupa Kety SA | 0.02% | 0.01% |
| HD Hyundai Marine Solution Co Ltd | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| LigaChem Biosciences Inc | 0.02% | 0.01% |
| HPSP Co Ltd | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| Doosan Robotics Inc | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| Duality Biotherapeutics Inc | 0.01% | 0.00% |
| Cheil Worldwide Inc | 0.01% | 0.00% |
| GS Engineering & Construction Corp | 0.01% | 0.00% |
| Hanon Systems | 0.01% | 0.00% |
| Only in IEMG | Only in VEA |
|---|---|
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 12.52% | ASML Holding NV 2.37% |
| SK hynix Inc. 5.83% | Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 1.56% |
| Tencent Holdings Limited 2.38% | SK hynix Inc 1.40% |
| Alibaba Group Holding Limited 1.83% | HSBC Holdings PLC 1.01% |
| MediaTek Inc. 1.42% | Novartis AG 0.91% |
| DELTA ELECTRONICS, INC. 1.03% | Royal Bank of Canada 0.90% |
| HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD. 0.79% | AstraZeneca PLC 0.87% |
| Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 0.74% | Nestle SA 0.82% |
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.
| IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | VEA Vanguard Developed Markets Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | Core MSCI Emerging Markets | Developed markets ex US |
| Total return, 1 year | +30.6% | +24.5% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +13.1 pts | +7.0 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.03% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Holdings | 2695 | 3870 |
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.
VEA in plain words
VEA is an index equity fund tracking the Developed markets ex US. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +24.5% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% 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 3870 positions, with the top ten at 13.2%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IEMG or VEA?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IEMG returned +30.6% and VEA returned +24.5%, so IEMG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IEMG or VEA?
- IEMG charges 0.09% a year and VEA charges 0.03%, so VEA is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IEMG and VEA overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IEMG and 0% of VEA by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 0% 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, IEMG against VEA, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IEMG-VEA Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources