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

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.

Positions IDEV and IEFA both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIDEVIEFA
ASML HOLDING2.29%2.62%
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC1.22%1.40%
ROCHE PS PAR AG1.02%1.18%
SHELL PLC0.91%1.09%
MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP0.88%1.00%
NOVARTIS AG0.87%0.99%
NESTLE SA0.85%0.97%
ASTRAZENECA PLC0.83%0.94%
BHP GROUP LTD0.80%0.91%
SIEMENS N AG0.75%0.86%
ALLIANZ0.67%0.76%
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA0.64%0.72%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IDEVOnly in IEFA
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 0.98%CHF CASH 0.11%
TORONTO DOMINION 0.69%DKK CASH 0.02%
SHOPIFY SUBORDINATE VOTING CLASS A 0.52%4DMEDICAL 0.01%
BANK OF MONTREAL 0.41%AEON REIT INVESTMENT REIT CORP 0.01%
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA 0.39%AICA KOGYO LTD 0.01%
CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE 0.36%AICHI FINANCIAL GROUP INC 0.01%
CANADIAN NATURAL RESOURCES LTD 0.36%ALTRA FASTIGHETER 0.01%
ENBRIDGE 0.36%AMANO CORP 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 Sep 10, 2026.

IDEV and IEFA on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IDEV
iShares Core MSCI International Developed Markets ETF
IEFA
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isCore MSCI International Developed MarketsCore 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 ratio0.04%0.07%
Already in the S&P 5000.1%0.1%
Holdings17821650

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 Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1782 positions, with the top ten at 10.6%.

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, IDEV or IEFA?
In the year to Sep 13, 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.

IDEV 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, IDEV against IEFA, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/idev-vs-iefa Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources