Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

EWZ vs IEMG: how they differ

EWZ and IEMG hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and EWZ returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI Brazil ETF and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, EWZ and IEMG hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions EWZ and IEMG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingEWZIEMG
CIA VALE DO RIO DOCE SH9.71%0.39%
NU HOLDINGS CLASS A9.13%0.38%
ITAU UNIBANCO HOLDING PREF SA7.83%0.32%
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO PREF SA7.30%0.31%
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO SA PETROBRAS6.86%0.28%
BANCO BRADESCO PREF3.70%0.14%
B3 BRASIL BOLSA BALCAO SA3.48%0.12%
ITAUSA INVESTIMENTOS ITAU PREF SA2.46%0.11%
WEG3.28%0.11%
AMBEV SA2.81%0.10%
AXIA ENERGIA SA3.05%0.10%
BCO BTG PACTUAL UNT SA2.74%0.10%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in EWZOnly in IEMG
ETD BRL BALANCE WITH R73215 0.66%TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 13.46%
CASH COLLATERAL USD JPFFT 0.43%SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD 6.62%
AXIA ENERGIA PREF SA 0.15%SK HYNIX 5.38%
TENCENT HOLDINGS 2.35%
ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING 1.61%
MEDIATEK 1.52%
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS NON VOTING PRE 0.86%
CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORP H 0.74%

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 Sep 10, 2026.

EWZ and IEMG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
EWZ
iShares MSCI Brazil ETF
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isMSCI BrazilCore MSCI Emerging Markets
Total return, 1 year+32.9%+30.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.4 pts+13.1 pts
Expense ratio0.59%0.09%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%0.0%
Holdings501832

EWZ in plain words

EWZ is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI Brazil. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +32.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.59% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 50 positions, with the top ten at 57.1%. It sat 7.6% below its high of Apr 14, 2026 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 Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1832 positions, with the top ten at 34.0%. 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, EWZ or IEMG?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, EWZ returned +32.9% and IEMG returned +30.6%, so EWZ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, EWZ or IEMG?
EWZ charges 0.59% a year and IEMG charges 0.09%, so IEMG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do EWZ and IEMG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of EWZ and 0% of IEMG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% 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.

EWZ against IEMG, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 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, EWZ against IEMG, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ewz-vs-iemg Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources