PlainIndex

ETF comparison

EWA vs PXF

Both International Developed.

iShares MSCI Australia ETF · Invesco RAFI Developed Markets ex-U.S. ETF

Holdings overlap

0.0 %

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

EWA only 0.0% Shared 0.0% PXF only 0.0%
In EWA only
0 positions
Shared
0 positions
In PXF only
0 positions

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

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

Side by side

EWA

iShares MSCI Australia ETF

iShares · International Developed

59 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.50%
Net assets
$1.35B
TTM yield
2.86%
Top-10 conc.
—
PXF

Invesco RAFI Developed Markets ex-U.S. ETF

Invesco · International Developed

66 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.43%
Net assets
$2.79B
TTM yield
3.25%
Top-10 conc.
—

Sub-score comparison

50
Cost
57
72
Tax efficiency
71
62
Liquidity
76
N/A
Concentration
N/A
—
Tracking quality
—
EWA sub-score PXF

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

Cost difference

PXF is 7 bps cheaper than EWA. On a $100,000 position that's about $70/yr more in fees for EWA.

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 EWA

0 total

Every EWA position is also held by PXF.

Only in PXF

0 total

Every PXF position is also held by EWA.

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.