PlainIndex

ETF comparison

EFA vs EWJ

Both International Developed.

iShares MSCI EAFE ETF · iShares MSCI Japan ETF

Holdings overlap

0.0 %

0 positions appear in both funds. Buying equal dollars of EFA and EWJ would leave roughly 0.0% of each dollar exposed to the same underlying securities.

EFA only 0.0% Shared 0.0% EWJ only 0.0%
In EFA only
0 positions
Shared
0 positions
In EWJ only
0 positions

Holdings data for EFA covers 0.0% of fund weight. The remainder lacks matchable identifiers in the N-PORT filing.

Holdings data for EWJ covers 0.0% of fund weight. The remainder lacks matchable identifiers in the N-PORT filing.

Side by side

EFA

iShares MSCI EAFE ETF

iShares · International Developed

78 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.32%
Net assets
$75.61B
TTM yield
3.17%
Top-10 conc.
—
EWJ

iShares MSCI Japan ETF

iShares · International Developed

69 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.49%
Net assets
$20.98B
TTM yield
4.08%
Top-10 conc.
—

Sub-score comparison

68
Cost
51
71
Tax efficiency
68
100
Liquidity
100
N/A
Concentration
N/A
—
Tracking quality
—
EFA sub-score EWJ

Tracking-quality sub-score is not yet computed for any fund — see methodology for which inputs are live.

Cost difference

EFA is 17 bps cheaper than EWJ. On a $100,000 position that's about $170/yr more in fees for EWJ.

Fee figure is the annual expense charged on $100,000. It compounds over time — we publish a fuller cost-projection calculator on the methodology page.

Top shared holdings

0 shared in total

No shared holdings between these funds.

Only in EFA

0 total

Every EFA position is also held by EWJ.

Only in EWJ

0 total

Every EWJ position is also held by EFA.

Holdings overlap is the sum of min(weight_a, weight_b) over positions matched on ISIN (CUSIP fallback). Methodology: see /methodology/.

Comparing two funds doesn't endorse swapping one for the other. Tax-lot history, account type, and personal goals matter — PlainIndex publishes data and methodology, not investment advice.