IEFA vs SCHX: 1% overlap
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF share 0.9% 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 2 months apart — SCHX as of 2026-05-31, 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
IEFA and SCHX hold 48 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in IEFA | in SCHX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRK | 0.1% | 0.4% | 0.3% |
| ALL | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| HEI | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| PRU | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| ROP | 1.2% | 0.1% | 1.1% |
| EQT | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| ADM | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| HBAN | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| DTE | 0.4% | 0.0% | 0.4% |
| DG | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.2% |
Where IEFA and SCHX 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 | SCHX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 11.9% | 36.8% | −24.9pp |
| Financials | 24.2% | 10.9% | +13.3pp |
| Industrials | 19.6% | 8.2% | +11.4pp |
| Communication Services | 3.2% | 10.1% | −6.9pp |
| Materials | 6.4% | 1.4% | +5.0pp |
| Unclassified | 0.0% | 3.4% | −3.4pp |
| Consumer Staples | 6.7% | 4.4% | +2.3pp |
| Utilities | 4.2% | 2.0% | +2.1pp |
Δ is IEFA minus SCHX, 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
94.7% of IEFA by weight, held in no part of SCHX.
96.6% of SCHX 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 | SCHX | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 12.5% | 37.3% |
| Positions held | 2,567 | 750 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $7 | $3 |
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 SCHX overlap?
IEFA and SCHX overlap 0.9% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 48 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (IEFA as of 2026-07-23, SCHX as of 2026-05-31).
How is the overlap between IEFA and SCHX 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 SCHX 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 SCHX?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 0.9% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does IEFA own that SCHX doesn't?
IEFA holds 2,567 positions and SCHX holds 750; 2,518 of IEFA's positions don't appear in SCHX at all, and they are 94.7% of IEFA by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares IEFA and SCHX. 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 SCHX
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, SCHX as of 2026-05-31. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.