EFAA vs NUDM
Invesco MSCI EAFE Income Advantage ETF vs Nuveen ESG International Developed Markets Equity ETF
Which is better, EFAA or NUDM?
Nearly the same fund. NUDM costs less.
NUDM has a lower expense ratio. EFAA led over 1Y, NUDM over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. NUDM is less concentrated, with 23.4% 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 | EFAA | NUDM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.39% | 0.27%Best |
| AUM | $677M | $869M |
| Dividend Yield | 8.42% | 5.02% |
| Holdings | 708 | 188 |
| YTD Return | +6.32% | +6.62%Best |
| 1Y Return | +11.72%Best | +10.96% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +18.10% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +8.36% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 8.5%Best | 12.0% |
| Max Drawdown | -12.0%Best | -13.5% |
| $10,000 over 2.2 years | $12,955 | $13,349Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 29.9% | 23.4%Best |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Nuveen |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 17, 2024 | Jun 6, 2017 |
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).
EFAA vs NUDM 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.
EFAA vs NUDM Performance
Invesco MSCI EAFE Income Advantage ETF (EFAA) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Nuveen ESG International Developed Markets Equity ETF (NUDM) is an ETF from Nuveen. Over the past year EFAA returned +11.72% while NUDM returned +10.96%. Year to date, EFAA is up 6.32% versus a gain of 6.62% for NUDM.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NUDM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.0% 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 -12.0% for EFAA and -13.5% for NUDM. 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
EFAA charges 0.39% per year while NUDM charges 0.27%. On a $10,000 position that is $39 vs $27 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EFAA currently yields 8.42% against 5.02% for NUDM.
Holdings Overlap
20.9% of EFAA's money is in holdings NUDM also owns. 76.5% of NUDM's money is in holdings EFAA also owns.
Most of NUDM is already inside EFAA. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
120 positions in common, counted across the 657 positions we hold weights for in EFAA and 155 in NUDM, against full books of 708 and 188.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 0 positions for NUDM that do not appear in our book for EFAA (2.1% of the fund), and 19 for EFAA that do not appear in NUDM (24.4%).
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 EFAA | Weight in NUDM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASL:ASAsml Holding Nv Unsponsored Adr Ordinary Shares | 2.27% | 4.75% | 2.48% |
| NOVN:SMNovartis Ag Ordinary Shares | 0.87% | 2.30% | 1.43% |
| SAP:SGSap Se | 0.72% | 2.04% | 1.32% |
| 9984:JPSoftbank Corp | 0.55% | 2.06% | 1.51% |
| 8035:JPTokyo Electron Ltd. Com Stk | 0.52% | 2.00% | 1.48% |
| CBA:AUCommonwealth Bank Of Australia | 0.65% | 1.84% | 1.19% |
| IBE:MAIberdrola Sa | 0.50% | 1.67% | 1.17% |
| 6758:JPSony Group Corp. | 0.48% | 1.60% | 1.12% |
| ISP:MIIntesa Sanpaolo SpA Shs | 0.39% | 1.65% | 1.26% |
| NAB:AUNational Australia Bank Ltd. Ordinary Fully Paid | 0.30% | 1.66% | 1.36% |
76.5% of NUDM 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, EFAA or NUDM?
EFAA has an expense ratio of 0.39% while NUDM charges 0.27%. NUDM is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, EFAA or NUDM?
Over the past year EFAA returned +11.72% vs +10.96% for NUDM, so EFAA leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), EFAA annualized +12.49% vs +14.03% for NUDM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, EFAA or NUDM?
NUDM has been the more volatile fund at 12.0% annualized versus 8.5% for EFAA. Worst drawdown: EFAA -12.0% vs NUDM -13.5%.
Should I hold both EFAA and NUDM?
EFAA and NUDM 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 EFAA and NUDM?
76.5% of NUDM's money is in holdings EFAA also owns. 76.5% of NUDM's is in holdings EFAA also owns. They hold 120 positions in common, counted across the 657 positions we hold weights for in EFAA and 155 in NUDM.
Which pays a higher dividend, EFAA or NUDM?
EFAA yields 8.42% while NUDM yields 5.02%, so EFAA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NUDM better than EFAA?
NUDM has a lower expense ratio. EFAA led over 1Y, NUDM over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. NUDM is less concentrated, with 23.4% 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.