Screener
EFA vs EEMA
iShares MSCI EAFE ETF vs iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF
Key differences
- EFA costs 0.17% less per year.
- EFA is significantly larger than EEMA — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- EFA covers global ex us markets; EEMA covers emerging markets.
- Over the last 3 years, EEMA has delivered higher annualized returns.
- EFA has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| EFA | EEMA | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.32% | 0.49% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $75.6B | $1.3B |
| Since | 2001 | 2012 |
| Dividend yield | 3.17% | 1.28% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | global ex us | emerging markets |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +22.4% | +46.6% |
| CAGR 3Y | +16.0% | +22.4% |
| CAGR 5Y | +8.9% | +7.1% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.82 | 0.95 |
| Volatility 1Y | 15.12% | 19.95% |
| Max drawdown | -34.19% | -44.18% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to EFA and EEMA
Explore further