DMXU vs EFA
Xtrackers Bloomberg Developed Markets ex US Equity ETF vs iShares MSCI EAFE ETF
Which is better, DMXU or EFA?
Nearly the same fund. DMXU costs less.
DMXU has a lower expense ratio. EFA led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. EFA is less concentrated, with 14.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 16.2%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | DMXU | EFA |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.32% |
| AUM | $65M | $76.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 3.87% | 3.24% |
| Holdings | 360 | 682 |
| YTD Return | +5.39% | +7.56%Best |
| 1Y Return | +10.30% | +13.78%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.70% | +17.91%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.53% | +8.68%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.2% | 16.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -32.3%Best | -33.9% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,720 | $15,162Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 16.2% | 14.1%Best |
| Fund Family | Xtrackers ETFs | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 5, 2018 | Aug 14, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 2, 2018 to Oct 14, 2026 (7.9 years).
DMXU vs EFA growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 7.9 years both funds cover.
DMXU vs EFA Performance
Xtrackers Bloomberg Developed Markets ex US Equity ETF (DMXU) is an ETF from Xtrackers ETFs and iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year DMXU returned +10.30% while EFA returned +13.78%. Year to date, DMXU is up 5.39% versus a gain of 7.56% for EFA.
Over three years, DMXU compounded at +14.70% per year against +17.91% for EFA; over five years the annualized figures are +6.53% and +8.68% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, EFA has the edge at +9.51% annualized vs +8.04%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
DMXU has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.2% compared with 16.0% for EFA. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -32.3% for DMXU and -33.9% for EFA. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
DMXU charges 0.03% per year while EFA charges 0.32%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $32 annually, a gap of $29 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, DMXU currently yields 3.87% against 3.24% for EFA.
Holdings Overlap
54.6% of DMXU's money is in holdings EFA also owns. 66.1% of EFA's money is in holdings DMXU also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
338 positions in common, counted across the 624 positions we hold weights for in DMXU and 655 in EFA, against full books of 360 and 682.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in DMXU | Weight in EFA | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASML:ASASML HOLDING NV | 2.71% | 3.27% | 0.56% |
| HSBA:LNHsbc Holdings Plc | 1.25% | 1.53% | 0.28% |
| NOVN:SMNovartis Ag Ordinary Shares | 1.01% | 1.22% | 0.21% |
| AZN:LNAstraZeneca PLC | 0.90% | 1.12% | 0.22% |
| 8306:JPMitsubishi Ufj Financial Group, Inc. | 0.86% | 1.14% | 0.28% |
| NESN:SMNestle Sa | 0.89% | 1.08% | 0.19% |
| BHP:AUBhp Group Ltd | 0.83% | 0.99% | 0.16% |
| SAP:SGSap Se | 0.77% | 1.00% | 0.23% |
| SAN:MABanco Santander | 0.73% | 0.89% | 0.16% |
| CBA:AUCommonwealth Bank Of Australia | 0.68% | 0.81% | 0.13% |
66.1% of EFA is already inside DMXU.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, DMXU or EFA?
DMXU has an expense ratio of 0.03% while EFA charges 0.32%. DMXU is the cheaper option, by $29 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, DMXU or EFA?
Over the past year DMXU returned +10.30% vs +13.78% for EFA, so EFA leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), DMXU annualized +8.04% vs +9.51% for EFA. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, DMXU or EFA?
DMXU has been the more volatile fund at 16.2% annualized versus 16.0% for EFA. Worst drawdown: DMXU -32.3% vs EFA -33.9%.
Should I hold both DMXU and EFA?
DMXU and EFA have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between DMXU and EFA?
66.1% of EFA's money is in holdings DMXU also owns. 66.1% of EFA's is in holdings DMXU also owns. They hold 338 positions in common, counted across the 624 positions we hold weights for in DMXU and 655 in EFA.
Which pays a higher dividend, DMXU or EFA?
DMXU yields 3.87% while EFA yields 3.24%, so DMXU currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is EFA better than DMXU?
DMXU has a lower expense ratio. EFA led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. EFA is less concentrated, with 14.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 16.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.