EFA vs NTSI
iShares MSCI EAFE ETF vs WisdomTree International Efficient Core Fund
Which is better, EFA or NTSI?
Nearly the same fund. NTSI costs less.
NTSI 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 21.5%.
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 | EFA | NTSI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.32% | 0.26%Best |
| AUM | $76.7B | $476M |
| Dividend Yield | 3.24% | 3.14% |
| Holdings | 682 | 466 |
| YTD Return | +7.56%Best | +4.28% |
| 1Y Return | +13.78%Best | +9.28% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.91%Best | +16.10% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.68%Best | +5.34% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1%Best | 16.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -29.5%Best | -34.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,162Best | $12,971 |
| Top 10 Weight | 14.1%Best | 21.5% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | WisdomTree Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Aug 14, 2001 | May 20, 2021 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 20, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.4 years).
EFA vs NTSI 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 5.4 years both funds cover.
EFA vs NTSI Performance
iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and WisdomTree International Efficient Core Fund (NTSI) is an ETF from WisdomTree Investments. Over the past year EFA returned +13.78% while NTSI returned +9.28%. Year to date, EFA is up 7.56% versus a gain of 4.28% for NTSI.
Over three years, EFA compounded at +17.91% per year against +16.10% for NTSI; over five years the annualized figures are +8.68% and +5.34% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NTSI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.2% compared with 15.1% 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 -29.5% for EFA and -34.0% for NTSI. 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
EFA charges 0.32% per year while NTSI charges 0.26%. On a $10,000 position that is $32 vs $26 annually, a gap of $6 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EFA currently yields 3.24% against 3.14% for NTSI.
Holdings Overlap
66.5% of EFA's money is in holdings NTSI also owns. 70.4% of NTSI's money is in holdings EFA also owns.
Most of NTSI is already inside EFA. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
314 positions in common, counted across the 655 positions we hold weights for in EFA and 443 in NTSI, against full books of 682 and 466.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 5 positions for NTSI that do not appear in our book for EFA (9.7% of the fund), and 9 for EFA that do not appear in NTSI (2.5%).
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 EFA | Weight in NTSI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASML:ASASML HOLDING NV | 3.27% | 3.48% | 0.21% |
| HSBA:LNHsbc Holdings Plc | 1.53% | 1.72% | 0.19% |
| SHELShell Plc | 1.28% | 1.62% | 0.34% |
| NOVN:SMNovartis Ag – Class N | 1.22% | 1.33% | 0.11% |
| NESN:SMNestle Sa | 1.08% | 1.10% | 0.02% |
| SIE:SGSiemens Ag Reg Common Stock | 1.04% | 1.08% | 0.04% |
| AZN:LNAstraZeneca PLC | 1.12% | 0.92% | 0.20% |
| 9984:JPSoftbank Corp | 0.74% | 1.26% | 0.52% |
| SAP:SGSap Se | 1.00% | 0.99% | 0.01% |
| BHP:AUBhp Group Ltd | 0.99% | 0.96% | 0.03% |
70.4% of NTSI is already inside EFA.
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, EFA or NTSI?
EFA has an expense ratio of 0.32% while NTSI charges 0.26%. NTSI is the cheaper option, by $6 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, EFA or NTSI?
Over the past year EFA returned +13.78% vs +9.28% for NTSI, so EFA leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, EFA or NTSI?
NTSI has been the more volatile fund at 16.2% annualized versus 15.1% for EFA. Worst drawdown: EFA -29.5% vs NTSI -34.0%.
Should I hold both EFA and NTSI?
EFA and NTSI 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 EFA and NTSI?
70.4% of NTSI's money is in holdings EFA also owns. 70.4% of NTSI's is in holdings EFA also owns. They hold 314 positions in common, counted across the 655 positions we hold weights for in EFA and 443 in NTSI.
Which pays a higher dividend, EFA or NTSI?
EFA yields 3.24% while NTSI yields 3.14%, so EFA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NTSI better than EFA?
NTSI 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 21.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.