PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
INTF vs. EFAS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

INTF vs. EFAS - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, INTF achieves a 10.41% return, which is significantly lower than EFAS's 13.61% return.


INTF

1D
0.55%
1M
1.96%
YTD
10.41%
6M
14.13%
1Y
25.27%
3Y*
19.86%
5Y*
9.90%
10Y*
9.25%

EFAS

1D
-0.50%
1M
-1.27%
YTD
13.61%
6M
18.42%
1Y
28.44%
3Y*
24.71%
5Y*
12.25%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

INTF vs. EFAS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
INTF
iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF
10.41%35.50%5.99%18.25%-12.31%11.70%2.83%18.46%-15.87%28.46%
EFAS
Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF
13.61%46.83%3.07%14.65%-8.00%12.75%-5.42%14.60%-11.60%22.76%

Correlation

The correlation between INTF and EFAS is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.72

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.73

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.78

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 17, 2016

0.74

The correlation between INTF and EFAS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

INTF vs. EFAS - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
INTF
EFAS

Financial Services

25.2%
30.1%

Industrials

19.1%
9.9%

Consumer Cyclical

9.0%
1.9%

Technology

8.5%
0.1%

Healthcare

8.2%
0.1%

Basic Materials

6.6%
1.8%

Consumer Defensive

6.3%
8.1%

Energy

5.9%
13.7%

Utilities

4.7%
14.4%

Communication Services

3.9%
8.6%

Real Estate

2.7%
11.3%

Financial Services

INTF
25.2%
EFAS
30.1%

Industrials

INTF
19.1%
EFAS
9.9%

Consumer Cyclical

INTF
9.0%
EFAS
1.9%

Technology

INTF
8.5%
EFAS
0.1%

Healthcare

INTF
8.2%
EFAS
0.1%

Basic Materials

INTF
6.6%
EFAS
1.8%

Consumer Defensive

INTF
6.3%
EFAS
8.1%

Energy

INTF
5.9%
EFAS
13.7%

Utilities

INTF
4.7%
EFAS
14.4%

Communication Services

INTF
3.9%
EFAS
8.6%

Real Estate

INTF
2.7%
EFAS
11.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

INTF vs. EFAS — Risk / Return Rank

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

INTF
INTF Risk / Return Rank: 5252
Overall Rank
INTF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
INTF Sortino Ratio Rank: 4949
Sortino Ratio Rank
INTF Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
INTF Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
INTF Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
Martin Ratio Rank

EFAS
EFAS Risk / Return Rank: 8282
Overall Rank
EFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
EFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
EFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
EFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

INTF vs. EFAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF (INTF) 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.


INTFEFASDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.75

2.70

-0.95

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.44

3.79

-1.35

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.47

-0.16

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.63

5.72

-3.09

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

10.44

15.34

-4.90

INTF vs. EFAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INTF Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is lower than the EFAS Sharpe Ratio of 2.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INTF 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


INTFEFASDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.75

2.70

-0.95

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.62

0.79

-0.17

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.54

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.45

0.56

-0.11

Drawdowns

INTF vs. EFAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INTF drawdown since its inception was -40.39%, smaller than the maximum EFAS drawdown of -44.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INTF and EFAS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


INTFEFASDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-40.39%

-44.38%

+3.99%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.20%

-5.30%

-4.90%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.64%

-11.84%

-1.80%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.26%

-28.81%

-0.45%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-40.39%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.19%

-2.45%

+2.26%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.70%

-7.08%

-0.62%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.57%

1.98%

+0.59%

Volatility

INTF vs. EFAS - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF (INTF) has a higher volatility of 4.65% compared to Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) at 3.08%. This indicates that INTF'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


INTFEFASDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.65%

3.08%

+1.57%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.96%

8.17%

+3.79%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.57%

10.67%

+3.90%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.16%

15.59%

+0.57%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.35%

18.33%

-0.98%

INTF vs. EFAS - Expense Ratio Comparison

INTF has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than EFAS's 0.56% expense ratio.


Dividends

INTF vs. EFAS - Dividend Comparison

INTF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.60%, less than EFAS's 4.59% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EFAS
Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF
4.59%4.83%6.76%6.33%7.28%5.19%4.34%5.75%6.63%6.15%0.21%0.00%
INTF
iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF
2.60%2.87%3.53%3.59%2.81%5.38%2.06%3.65%2.62%3.26%1.66%0.85%

Frequently Asked Questions


INTF and EFAS have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

INTF has higher volatility (4.65%) compared to EFAS (3.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, INTF dropped -40.39% vs EFAS's -44.38%.

On 5-year performance, EFAS leads with 12.25% vs 9.90% for INTF. On fees, INTF is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, EFAS has been the lower-risk option at 3.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, EFAS has performed better with a 12.25% return vs 9.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

INTF is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for EFAS.

EFAS has the higher dividend yield at 4.59%, compared with 2.60% for INTF.

INTF tracks MSCI World ex USA Diversified Multi-Factor, while EFAS tracks MSCI EAFE Top 50 Dividend Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for INTF and 0.56% for EFAS.

EFAS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.70 vs 1.75), 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 INTF and EFAS

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