Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
FXI vs IEMG: how they differ
FXI and IEMG hold 10% 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 10% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | FXI | IEMG |
|---|---|---|
| TENCENT HOLDINGS | 8.34% | 2.35% |
| ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING | 9.14% | 1.61% |
| CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORP H | 9.88% | 0.74% |
| XIAOMI | 4.83% | 0.39% |
| BANK OF CHINA LTD H | 4.32% | 0.36% |
| MEITUAN | 4.36% | 0.34% |
| PING AN INSURANCE (GROUP) CO OF CH | 3.80% | 0.30% |
| NETEASE | 3.56% | 0.29% |
| BYD H | 3.14% | 0.26% |
| JD.COM CLASS A | 2.78% | 0.21% |
| CHINA LIFE INSURANCE LTD H | 2.41% | 0.20% |
| ZIJIN MINING GROUP LTD H | 2.39% | 0.20% |
| Only in FXI | Only in IEMG |
|---|---|
| JIANGSU HENGRUI PHARMACEUTICALS LT 0.11% | TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 13.46% |
| GIGADEVICE SEMICONDUCTOR INC CLASS 0.10% | SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD 6.62% |
| CHINA EVERBRIGHT BANK LTD H 0.09% | SK HYNIX 5.38% |
| S.F. HOLDING LTD CLASS H 0.08% | MEDIATEK 1.52% |
| SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS NON VOTING PRE 0.86% | |
| DELTA ELECTRONICS 0.73% | |
| HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY 0.69% | |
| HDFC BANK 0.57% |
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.
| FXI iShares China Large-Cap ETF | IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | China Large-Cap | Core 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 ratio | 0.73% | 0.09% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Holdings | 53 | 1832 |
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 Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 53 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%. 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 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, FXI or IEMG?
- In the year to Sep 13, 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, 10% 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, FXI against IEMG, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/fxi-vs-iemg Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources