PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
BBJP vs. IEFA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

BBJP vs. IEFA

Last updated Jul 26, 2026
Documentation

BBJP (JPMorgan BetaBuilders Japan ETF) and IEFA (iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BBJP is a Japan Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Japan Target Market Exposure Index, while IEFA is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE IMI Index (Net). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BBJP returned 8.67%/yr vs 8.55%/yr for IEFA. Their correlation of 0.84 means they have usually moved in the same direction. BBJP charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IEFA.

Performance

BBJP vs. IEFA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in JPMorgan BetaBuilders Japan ETF (BBJP) and iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BBJP achieves a 11.90% return, which is significantly higher than IEFA's 9.45% return.

BBJP

1D
0.19%
1M
-2.16%
6M
6.85%
YTD
11.90%
1Y
24.42%
3Y*
16.52%
5Y*
8.67%
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
7.64%

IEFA

1D
0.61%
1M
0.32%
6M
4.92%
YTD
9.45%
1Y
17.75%
3Y*
15.52%
5Y*
8.55%
10Y*
9.38%
ALL TIME*
8.38%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

BBJP

JPMorgan BetaBuilders Japan ETF
$122.93M$111.87M$115.37M

IEFA

iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF
$895.79M$960.37M$950.39M

BBJP vs. IEFA - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
BBJP
JPMorgan BetaBuilders Japan ETF		11.90%26.55%7.47%20.65%-17.24%1.21%15.42%18.85%-13.92%
IEFA
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF		9.45%32.08%3.26%17.95%-15.24%11.63%8.18%22.64%-14.16%

Correlation

The correlation between BBJP and IEFA is 0.84, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.84

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.82

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.83

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2018

0.84

The correlation between BBJP and IEFA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

BBJP vs. IEFA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
BBJP
IEFA

Industrials

25.6%
19.3%

Technology

22.2%
12.1%

Financial Services

18.8%
25.5%

Consumer Cyclical

10.7%
7.3%

Healthcare

5.8%
10.0%

Communication Services

4.6%
3.4%

Basic Materials

4.1%
6.2%

Consumer Defensive

3.6%
6.5%

Real Estate

2.2%
2.2%

Utilities

1.0%
3.5%

Energy

0.9%
3.7%

Industrials

BBJP
25.6%
IEFA
19.3%

Technology

BBJP
22.2%
IEFA
12.1%

Financial Services

BBJP
18.8%
IEFA
25.5%

Consumer Cyclical

BBJP
10.7%
IEFA
7.3%

Healthcare

BBJP
5.8%
IEFA
10.0%

Communication Services

BBJP
4.6%
IEFA
3.4%

Basic Materials

BBJP
4.1%
IEFA
6.2%

Consumer Defensive

BBJP
3.6%
IEFA
6.5%

Real Estate

BBJP
2.2%
IEFA
2.2%

Utilities

BBJP
1.0%
IEFA
3.5%

Energy

BBJP
0.9%
IEFA
3.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

JPMorgan BetaBuilders Japan ETF

iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF

Often compared with BBJP:
BBJP vs. EWJBBJP vs. DXJBBJP vs. FLJPBBJP vs. EWJVBBJP vs. DBJPBBJP vs. VOOBBJP vs. BBAX
Often compared with IEFA:
IEFA vs. VEAIEFA vs. VXUSIEFA vs. EFAIEFA vs. FSPSXIEFA vs. IEMGIEFA vs. XEF.TOIEFA vs. IXUS

Return for Risk

BBJP vs. IEFA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
BBJP
BBJP Risk / Return Rank: 4848
Overall Rank
BBJP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BBJP Sortino Ratio Rank: 4646
Sortino Ratio Rank
BBJP Omega Ratio Rank: 4848
Omega Ratio Rank
BBJP Calmar Ratio Rank: 4848
Calmar Ratio Rank
BBJP Martin Ratio Rank: 4848
Martin Ratio Rank
IEFA
IEFA Risk / Return Rank: 4747
Overall Rank
IEFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEFA Omega Ratio Rank: 4646
Omega Ratio Rank
IEFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEFA Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BBJP vs. IEFA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for JPMorgan BetaBuilders Japan ETF (BBJP) and iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

BBJPIEFADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.14
1.14

0.00

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.67
1.67

0.00

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.21

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.70

1.54

+0.16

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.53

5.85

-0.32

BBJP vs. IEFA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BBJP Sharpe Ratio is 1.14, which is comparable to the IEFA Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BBJP and IEFA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

BBJP vs. IEFA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BBJP drawdown since its inception was -32.66%, smaller than the maximum IEFA drawdown of -34.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BBJP and IEFA.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

BBJPIEFADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-32.66%

-34.78%

+2.12%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.60%

-11.50%

-2.10%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.49%

-13.76%

-0.73%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.66%

-30.41%

-2.25%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-34.78%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.62%

-2.00%

-3.62%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.43%

-6.63%

-1.80%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.19%

3.02%

+1.17%

Volatility

BBJP vs. IEFA - Volatility Comparison

JPMorgan BetaBuilders Japan ETF (BBJP) has a higher volatility of 5.94% compared to iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) at 4.00%. This indicates that BBJP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IEFA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

BBJPIEFADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.94%

4.00%

+1.94%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.84%

13.48%

+3.36%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.22%

15.55%

+4.67%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.45%

16.59%

+1.86%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.41%

17.02%

+1.39%

BBJP vs. IEFA - Expense Ratio Comparison

BBJP has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than IEFA's 0.07% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

BBJP vs. IEFA - Dividend Comparison

BBJP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.80%, more than IEFA's 3.41% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BBJP
JPMorgan BetaBuilders Japan ETF		4.80%5.37%2.80%3.05%1.52%2.89%1.12%2.31%0.65%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IEFA
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF		3.41%3.55%3.47%3.20%2.70%3.32%1.90%3.18%3.46%2.57%2.96%2.63%

Frequently Asked Questions

BBJP and IEFA have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BBJP has higher volatility (5.94%) compared to IEFA (4.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BBJP dropped -32.66% vs IEFA's -34.78%.

On 5-year performance, BBJP leads with 8.67% vs 8.55% for IEFA. On fees, IEFA is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, IEFA has been the lower-risk option at 4.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, BBJP has performed better with a 8.67% return vs 8.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IEFA is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for BBJP.

BBJP has the higher dividend yield at 4.80%, compared with 3.41% for IEFA.

BBJP is categorized as Japan Equities, while IEFA is Foreign Large Cap Equities. BBJP tracks Morningstar Japan Target Market Exposure Index, while IEFA tracks MSCI EAFE IMI Index (Net). They also come from different issuers: JPMorgan and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for BBJP and 0.07% for IEFA.

BBJP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.14 vs 1.14), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BBJP and IEFA

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer