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

FENI vs IEFA: how they differ

FENI and IEFA hold 1% 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 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FENI and IEFA both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFENIIEFA
DBS GROUP HOLDINGS LTD0.22%0.49%
UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LTD0.31%0.15%
RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORP0.30%0.14%
DISCO CORP0.21%0.12%
BOC HONG KONG HOLDINGS LTD0.35%0.10%
SUN HUNG KAI PROPERTIES LTD0.16%0.08%
BANDAI NAMCO HOLDINGS INC0.36%0.07%
DAIWA SECURITIES GROUP INC0.47%0.06%
CK ASSET HOLDINGS LTD0.12%0.05%
GEA GROUP AG0.04%0.04%
SYMRISE AG0.04%0.05%
MINEBEA MITSUMI INC0.02%0.03%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FENIOnly in IEFA
ASML HOLDING NV 4.11%ASML HOLDING 2.62%
NESTLE SA 1.77%HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 1.40%
SIEMENS AG 1.63%ROCHE PS PAR AG 1.18%
TOKYO ELECTRON LTD 1.46%SHELL PLC 1.09%
ABB LTD 1.34%MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP 1.00%
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 1.33%NOVARTIS AG 0.99%
IBERDROLA SA 1.23%NESTLE SA 0.97%
BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA S.A 1.22%ASTRAZENECA PLC 0.94%

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 Sep 10, 2026.

FENI and IEFA on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 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%
Holdings3921650

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 Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1650 positions, with the top ten at 12.0%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FENI or IEFA?
In the year to Sep 13, 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, 1% 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 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, FENI against IEFA, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/feni-vs-iefa Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources