IAU vs. EFAS

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

IAU (iShares Gold Trust) and EFAS (Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price, while EFAS is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE Top 50 Dividend Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IAU returned 17.23%/yr vs 12.41%/yr for EFAS. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IAU charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for EFAS.

Performance

IAU vs. EFAS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Gold Trust (IAU) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IAU achieves a -2.44% return, which is significantly lower than EFAS's 15.45% return.

IAU

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: -9.54%
• YTD: -2.44%
• 6M: -2.22%
• 1Y: 22.32%
• 3Y*: 29.07%
• 5Y*: 17.23%
• 10Y*: 12.31%

EFAS

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 0.53%
• YTD: 15.45%
• 6M: 18.87%
• 1Y: 29.12%
• 3Y*: 25.18%
• 5Y*: 12.41%
• 10Y*: —

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

IAU vs. EFAS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IAU iShares Gold Trust	-2.44%	63.95%	26.85%	12.84%	-0.63%	-4.00%	25.03%	17.98%	-1.76%	12.91%
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	15.45%	46.83%	3.07%	14.65%	-8.00%	12.75%	-5.42%	14.60%	-11.60%	22.76%

Correlation

The correlation between IAU and EFAS is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.33
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.32
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2016	0.19

The correlation between IAU and EFAS shifts across timeframes, from 0.19 (all time) to 0.33 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IAU vs. EFAS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IAU	EFAS
Real Estate	100.0%	11.3%
Basic Materials	-	1.8%
Communication Services	-	8.6%
Consumer Cyclical	-	1.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	8.1%
Energy	-	13.7%
Financial Services	-	30.1%
Healthcare	-	0.1%
Industrials	-	9.9%
Technology	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	14.4%

Return for Risk

IAU vs. EFAS — Risk / Return Rank

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

IAU

IAU Risk / Return Rank: 26
IAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
IAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
IAU Omega Ratio Rank: 30
IAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
IAU Martin Ratio Rank: 24

EFAS

EFAS Risk / Return Rank: 89
EFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
EFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
EFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 88
EFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
EFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

IAU vs. EFAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Trust (IAU) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). 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.

	IAU	EFAS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.89	2.75	-1.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.25	3.86	-2.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.48	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.99	5.64	-4.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.83	14.75	-11.91

IAU vs. EFAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IAU Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is lower than the EFAS Sharpe Ratio of 2.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IAU and EFAS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IAU vs. EFAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IAU drawdown since its inception was -45.14%, roughly equal to the maximum EFAS drawdown of -44.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IAU and EFAS.

Drawdown Indicators

	IAU	EFAS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.14%	-44.38%	-0.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.40%	-5.30%	-19.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.40%	-11.84%	-12.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.40%	-28.81%	+4.41%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.40%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.03%	-0.87%	-21.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.97%	-7.06%	-8.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.47%	2.02%	+6.45%

Volatility

IAU vs. EFAS - Volatility Comparison

iShares Gold Trust (IAU) has a higher volatility of 7.70% compared to Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) at 3.35%. This indicates that IAU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFAS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IAU	EFAS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.70%	3.35%	+4.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.94%	8.58%	+15.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.17%	10.87%	+16.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.16%	15.62%	+2.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.02%	18.32%	-2.30%

IAU vs. EFAS - Expense Ratio Comparison

IAU has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than EFAS's 0.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

IAU vs. EFAS - Dividend Comparison

IAU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EFAS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.62%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	4.62%	4.83%	6.76%	6.33%	7.28%	5.19%	4.34%	5.75%	6.63%	6.15%	0.21%
IAU iShares Gold Trust	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IAU and EFAS in my portfolio?

IAU and EFAS have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IAU or EFAS?

IAU has higher volatility (7.70%) compared to EFAS (3.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IAU dropped -45.14% vs EFAS's -44.38%.

Which ETF is better, IAU or EFAS?

On 5-year performance, IAU leads with 17.23% vs 12.41% for EFAS. On fees, IAU is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, EFAS has been the lower-risk option at 3.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IAU or EFAS?

Over the 5-year period, IAU has performed better with a 17.23% return vs 12.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IAU or EFAS?

IAU is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for EFAS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IAU or EFAS?

EFAS has the higher dividend yield at 4.62%, compared with 0.00% for IAU.

What is the main difference between IAU and EFAS?

IAU is categorized as Gold, while EFAS is Foreign Large Cap Equities. IAU tracks LBMA Gold Price, while EFAS tracks MSCI EAFE Top 50 Dividend Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for IAU and 0.56% for EFAS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFAS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.75 vs 0.89), 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.