IEFA vs MUB: 0% overlap
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF and iShares National Muni Bond ETF share 0.0% of their portfolios by weight — computed as Σ min(wA, wB) over every holding both funds own.
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
IEFA and MUB hold 1 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in IEFA | in MUB | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| CASH | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Where IEFA and MUB 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 | IEFA | MUB | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Tax-Backed | 0.0% | 30.7% | −30.7pp |
| Financials | 24.2% | 0.0% | +24.2pp |
| Industrials | 19.6% | 0.0% | +19.6pp |
| Local Tax-Backed | 0.0% | 14.9% | −14.9pp |
| Utilities | 4.2% | 16.8% | −12.6pp |
| Information Technology | 11.9% | 0.0% | +11.9pp |
| School Districts | 0.0% | 10.2% | −10.2pp |
| Transportation | 0.0% | 10.2% | −10.2pp |
Δ is IEFA minus MUB, 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
99.5% of IEFA by weight, held in no part of MUB.
101.0% of MUB by weight, held in no part of IEFA.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| IEFA | MUB | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 12.5% | 17.2% |
| Positions held | 2,567 | 969 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $7 | $5 |
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 IEFA and MUB overlap?
IEFA and MUB overlap 0.0% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 1 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (IEFA as of 2026-07-23, MUB as of 2026-07-23).
How is the overlap between IEFA and MUB calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If IEFA holds a stock at 6% and MUB 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 IEFA and MUB?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 0.0% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does IEFA own that MUB doesn't?
IEFA holds 2,567 positions and MUB holds 969; 2,565 of IEFA's positions don't appear in MUB at all, and they are 99.5% of IEFA by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares IEFA and MUB. 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 IEFA vs MUB
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, IEFA as of 2026-07-23, MUB as of 2026-07-23. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.