EFA vs. CGIE

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

EFA (iShares MSCI EAFE ETF) and CGIE (Capital Group International Equity ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. EFA is passively managed, while CGIE is actively managed. Over the past year, EFA returned 21.18% vs 13.59% for CGIE. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. EFA charges 0.32%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for CGIE.

Performance

EFA vs. CGIE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA) and Capital Group International Equity ETF (CGIE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EFA achieves a 9.36% return, which is significantly higher than CGIE's 5.40% return.

EFA

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: 2.86%
• YTD: 9.36%
• 6M: 12.50%
• 1Y: 21.18%
• 3Y*: 16.77%
• 5Y*: 8.66%
• 10Y*: 9.21%

CGIE

• 1D: 0.69%
• 1M: 2.95%
• YTD: 5.40%
• 6M: 7.60%
• 1Y: 13.59%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EFA vs. CGIE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EFA iShares MSCI EAFE ETF	9.36%	31.55%	3.49%	10.38%
CGIE Capital Group International Equity ETF	5.40%	28.11%	0.72%	11.14%

Correlation

The correlation between EFA and CGIE is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2023	0.96

The correlation between EFA and CGIE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

EFA vs. CGIE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EFA	CGIE
Financial Services	24.6%	20.1%
Industrials	19.9%	28.1%
Healthcare	10.6%	7.5%
Technology	10.4%	17.8%
Consumer Cyclical	7.6%	2.7%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	7.0%
Basic Materials	5.9%	4.1%
Communication Services	4.5%	2.2%
Energy	4.0%	3.8%
Utilities	4.0%	6.8%
Real Estate	1.9%	-

Return for Risk

EFA vs. CGIE — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

EFA

EFA Risk / Return Rank: 41
EFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
EFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
EFA Omega Ratio Rank: 40
EFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
EFA Martin Ratio Rank: 45

CGIE

CGIE Risk / Return Rank: 26
CGIE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
CGIE Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
CGIE Omega Ratio Rank: 23
CGIE Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
CGIE Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

EFA vs. CGIE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA) and Capital Group International Equity ETF (CGIE). 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.

	EFA	CGIE	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.42	0.85	+0.56
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.05	1.30	+0.75
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.16	+0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.97	1.25	+0.72
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	7.39	4.68	+2.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EFA vs. CGIE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFA Sharpe Ratio is 1.42, which is higher than the CGIE Sharpe Ratio of 0.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFA and CGIE, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EFA	CGIE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.42	0.85	+0.56
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.54	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.31	1.08	-0.77

Drawdowns

EFA vs. CGIE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFA drawdown since its inception was -61.04%, which is greater than CGIE's maximum drawdown of -13.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFA and CGIE.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFA	CGIE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-61.04%	-13.82%	-47.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.42%	-11.94%	+0.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.05%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.53%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.19%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.61%	-0.84%	+0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.94%	-2.56%	-9.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.04%	3.19%	-0.15%

Volatility

EFA vs. CGIE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA) is 5.12%, while Capital Group International Equity ETF (CGIE) has a volatility of 5.53%. This indicates that EFA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGIE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EFA	CGIE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.12%	5.53%	-0.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.49%	13.54%	-1.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.06%	16.05%	-0.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.48%	15.53%	+0.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.26%	15.53%	+1.73%

EFA vs. CGIE - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFA has a 0.32% expense ratio, which is lower than CGIE's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

EFA vs. CGIE - Dividend Comparison

EFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.09%, more than CGIE's 1.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGIE Capital Group International Equity ETF	1.11%	1.17%	1.27%	0.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EFA iShares MSCI EAFE ETF	3.09%	3.38%	3.24%	2.98%	2.69%	3.33%	2.13%	3.10%	3.39%	2.57%	3.07%	2.76%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EFA and CGIE in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, EFA and CGIE move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, EFA or CGIE?

CGIE has higher volatility (5.53%) compared to EFA (5.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFA dropped -61.04% vs CGIE's -13.82%.

Which ETF is better, EFA or CGIE?

On 1-year performance, EFA leads with 21.18% vs 13.59% for CGIE. On fees, EFA is cheaper at 0.32% per year. On volatility, EFA has been the lower-risk option at 5.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EFA or CGIE?

Over the 1-year period, EFA has performed better with a 21.18% return vs 13.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EFA or CGIE?

EFA is cheaper with a 0.32% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for CGIE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EFA or CGIE?

EFA has the higher dividend yield at 3.09%, compared with 1.11% for CGIE.

What is the main difference between EFA and CGIE?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.32% for EFA and 0.54% for CGIE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.42 vs 0.85), 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.