EFA vs RGAGX: 3% overlap
iShares MSCI EAFE ETF and American Funds Growth Fund of America R6 share 3.4% of their portfolios by weight — computed as Σ min(wA, wB) over every holding both funds own.
Different holding dates. These holdings were published about 5 months apart — RGAGX as of 2026-02-28, the rest through 2026-07-23. Each fund is compared using its most recent file, so any trading in between shows up as a difference.
You would hold two tickers and get the diversification of 2.0. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
EFA and RGAGX hold 24 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in EFA | in RGAGX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASML | 3.2% | 0.8% | 2.5% |
| RR- | 0.7% | 0.3% | 0.4% |
| SAP | 0.7% | 0.3% | 0.4% |
| 9984 | 0.6% | 0.2% | 0.4% |
| RMS | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| BN | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| 6098 | 0.5% | 0.2% | 0.3% |
| TSCO | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| SAF | 0.6% | 0.1% | 0.5% |
| AIR | 0.6% | 0.1% | 0.5% |
Where EFA and RGAGX differ
Sector weights as a share of each fund, ordered by the size of the gap rather than the size of the sector — two funds that overlap heavily still usually diverge somewhere.
| Sector | EFA | RGAGX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financials | 25.8% | 6.5% | +19.3pp |
| Information Technology | 12.0% | 30.6% | −18.6pp |
| Communication Services | 3.1% | 13.2% | −10.1pp |
| Industrials | 19.0% | 9.8% | +9.2pp |
| Unclassified | 0.0% | 7.6% | −7.6pp |
| Consumer Staples | 7.0% | 2.4% | +4.6pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 8.3% | 12.7% | −4.4pp |
| Materials | 5.8% | 1.5% | +4.2pp |
Δ is EFA minus RGAGX, in percentage points. Sector data is not published by every issuer, so “Unclassified” is a real category rather than a gap in the table.
What each fund holds alone
88.6% of EFA by weight, held in no part of RGAGX.
95.4% of RGAGX by weight, held in no part of EFA.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| EFA | RGAGX | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 14.5% | 36.7% |
| Positions held | 678 | 309 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $33 | $30 |
Cost is the expense ratio applied to $10,000; it excludes any brokerage commission, bid-ask spread or tax consequence. Figures are facts about the funds, not a suggestion about which to hold.
Frequently asked
How much do EFA and RGAGX overlap?
EFA and RGAGX overlap 3.4% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 24 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (EFA as of 2026-07-23, RGAGX as of 2026-02-28).
How is the overlap between EFA and RGAGX calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If EFA holds a stock at 6% and RGAGX holds the same stock at 4%, 4% counts as shared. The result is bounded between 0% and 100%, and it is computed after looking through any fund-of-funds to the underlying holdings.
Is it redundant to hold both EFA and RGAGX?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 3.4% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does EFA own that RGAGX doesn't?
EFA holds 678 positions and RGAGX holds 309; 653 of EFA's positions don't appear in RGAGX at all, and they are 88.6% of EFA by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares EFA and RGAGX. Paste your whole portfolio — brokerage, 401(k), IRA — and see the overlap across every fund at once, plus what you actually own underneath them and your own Effective Funds number. Free, no account, nothing stored.
X-ray my portfolio — free →Watch EFA vs RGAGX
We re-read both funds’ published holdings every weeknight. Leave an address and we'll tell you when what's inside actually changes.
Not sending yet — email alerts are built but switched off, and you'll be among the first when they turn on. No spam, one-click unsubscribe.
Related comparisons
Sources: issuer holdings files, EFA as of 2026-07-23, RGAGX as of 2026-02-28. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.