PlainIndex

ETF comparison

EWH vs IPAC

Both International Developed.

iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF · iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF

Holdings overlap

0.0 %

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

EWH only 0.0% Shared 0.0% IPAC only 0.0%
In EWH only
0 positions
Shared
0 positions
In IPAC only
0 positions

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

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

Side by side

EWH

iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF

iShares · International Developed

55 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.50%
Net assets
$926.6M
TTM yield
4.68%
Top-10 conc.
—
IPAC

iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF

iShares · International Developed

81 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.090%
Net assets
$2.50B
TTM yield
3.92%
Top-10 conc.
—

Sub-score comparison

50
Cost
91
65
Tax efficiency
68
55
Liquidity
74
N/A
Concentration
N/A
—
Tracking quality
—
EWH sub-score IPAC

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

Cost difference

IPAC is 41 bps cheaper than EWH. On a $100,000 position that's about $410/yr more in fees for EWH.

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 EWH

0 total

Every EWH position is also held by IPAC.

Only in IPAC

0 total

Every IPAC position is also held by EWH.

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.