DMXU vs EFAA
Xtrackers Bloomberg Developed Markets ex US Equity ETF vs Invesco MSCI EAFE Income Advantage ETF
Which is better, DMXU or EFAA?
Nearly the same fund. DMXU costs less.
DMXU has a lower expense ratio. EFAA led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. DMXU is less concentrated, with 16.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 29.9%.
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 | EFAA |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.39% |
| AUM | $65M | $677M |
| Dividend Yield | 3.87% | 8.42% |
| Holdings | 360 | 708 |
| YTD Return | +5.39% | +6.32%Best |
| 1Y Return | +10.30% | +11.72%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.70% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.53% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.1% | 8.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -16.1% | -12.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.2 years | $12,343 | $12,955Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 16.2%Best | 29.9% |
| Fund Family | Xtrackers ETFs | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 5, 2018 | Jul 17, 2024 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 17, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.2 years).
DMXU vs EFAA 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 2.2 years both funds cover.
DMXU vs EFAA Performance
Xtrackers Bloomberg Developed Markets ex US Equity ETF (DMXU) is an ETF from Xtrackers ETFs and Invesco MSCI EAFE Income Advantage ETF (EFAA) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year DMXU returned +10.30% while EFAA returned +11.72%. Year to date, DMXU is up 5.39% versus a gain of 6.32% for EFAA.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
DMXU has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.1% compared with 8.5% for EFAA. 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 -16.1% for DMXU and -12.0% for EFAA. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.98. 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 EFAA charges 0.39%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $39 annually, a gap of $36 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, DMXU currently yields 3.87% against 8.42% for EFAA.
Holdings Overlap
53.7% of DMXU's money is in holdings EFAA also owns. 49.1% of EFAA's money is in holdings DMXU also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
356 positions in common, counted across the 624 positions we hold weights for in DMXU and 657 in EFAA, against full books of 360 and 708.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 12 positions for EFAA that do not appear in our book for DMXU (23.9% of the fund), and 0 for DMXU that do not appear in EFAA (1.1%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in DMXU | Weight in EFAA | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| HSBA:LNHsbc Holdings Plc | 1.25% | 1.25% | 0.00% |
| NOVN:SMNovartis Ag Ordinary Shares | 1.01% | 0.87% | 0.14% |
| 8306:JPMitsubishi Ufj Financial Group, Inc. | 0.86% | 0.88% | 0.02% |
| AZN:LNAstraZeneca PLC | 0.90% | 0.83% | 0.07% |
| NESN:SMNestle Sa | 0.89% | 0.84% | 0.05% |
| BHP:AUBhp Group Ltd | 0.83% | 0.78% | 0.05% |
| SAP:SGSap Se | 0.77% | 0.72% | 0.05% |
| CBA:AUCommonwealth Bank Of Australia | 0.68% | 0.65% | 0.03% |
| 7203:JPToyota Motor Corp | 0.62% | 0.65% | 0.03% |
| RY:CARoyal Bank of Canada | 0.98% | 0.26% | 0.72% |
53.7% of DMXU is already inside EFAA.
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 EFAA?
DMXU has an expense ratio of 0.03% while EFAA charges 0.39%. DMXU is the cheaper option, by $36 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, DMXU or EFAA?
Over the past year DMXU returned +10.30% vs +11.72% for EFAA, so EFAA leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), DMXU annualized +10.04% vs +12.49% for EFAA. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, DMXU or EFAA?
DMXU has been the more volatile fund at 12.1% annualized versus 8.5% for EFAA. Worst drawdown: DMXU -16.1% vs EFAA -12.0%.
Should I hold both DMXU and EFAA?
DMXU and EFAA have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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 EFAA?
53.7% of DMXU's money is in holdings EFAA also owns. 49.1% of EFAA's is in holdings DMXU also owns. They hold 356 positions in common, counted across the 624 positions we hold weights for in DMXU and 657 in EFAA.
Which pays a higher dividend, DMXU or EFAA?
DMXU yields 3.87% while EFAA yields 8.42%, so EFAA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is EFAA better than DMXU?
DMXU has a lower expense ratio. EFAA led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. DMXU is less concentrated, with 16.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 29.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.