Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IEMG vs IXUS: how they differ
IEMG and IXUS hold 32% of their weight in the same names, and IEMG returned more over the year.
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF and iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IEMG and IXUS hold 32% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IEMG | IXUS |
|---|---|---|
| TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING | 13.46% | 4.49% |
| SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD | 6.62% | 2.21% |
| SK HYNIX | 5.38% | 1.79% |
| TENCENT HOLDINGS | 2.35% | 0.78% |
| ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING | 1.61% | 0.53% |
| MEDIATEK | 1.52% | 0.51% |
| SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS NON VOTING PRE | 0.86% | 0.29% |
| CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORP H | 0.74% | 0.24% |
| DELTA ELECTRONICS | 0.73% | 0.24% |
| HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY | 0.69% | 0.23% |
| HDFC BANK | 0.57% | 0.19% |
| RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD | 0.54% | 0.18% |
| Only in IEMG | Only in IXUS |
|---|---|
| CELCOMDIGI 0.02% | ASML HOLDING 1.55% |
| CEMENTOS ARGOS SA 0.02% | HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 0.84% |
| ELITE ADVANCED LASER CORP 0.02% | ROCHE PS PAR AG 0.70% |
| FIBRA MTY SAPI REIT 0.02% | ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 0.68% |
| GANFENG LITHIUM LTD H 0.02% | SHELL PLC 0.62% |
| GCL TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS 0.02% | MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP 0.59% |
| GF SECURITIES H 0.02% | NOVARTIS AG 0.59% |
| INVERSIONES ARGOS 0.02% | NESTLE SA 0.58% |
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.
| IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | IXUS iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Core MSCI Emerging Markets | Core MSCI Total International Stock |
| Total return, 1 year | +30.6% | +22.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +13.1 pts | +4.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.07% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Holdings | 1832 | 2540 |
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.
IXUS in plain words
IXUS is an index equity fund tracking the Core MSCI Total International Stock. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.2% 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 2540 positions, with the top ten at 14.3%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IEMG or IXUS?
- In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IEMG returned +30.6% and IXUS returned +22.2%, so IEMG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IEMG or IXUS?
- IEMG charges 0.09% a year and IXUS charges 0.07%, so IXUS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IEMG and IXUS overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IEMG and 0% of IXUS by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 32% 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 IXUS, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iemg-vs-ixus Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources