VS
When evaluating costs, XEQT features a management fee (MER) of 0.18%, compared to 0.2% for XEF. Performance-wise, XEQT has returned 15.56% year-to-date with +$9 B in net flows, whereas XEF is at 11.7% with +$6 B. Use the comparison tool below to benchmark these funds across top 10 holdings, yield, sector weights and historical returns.
NAV Performance and Flows
Key Data
Compare
XEQT
XEF
| AuM | $23,835.82 M | $24,208.12 M |
| Management Fees | 0.18% | 0.20% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.19% | 0.22% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.04% |
Historical performance and flows
As of October 28, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | XEQT | -0.41% | +1.76% | +15.56% | +15.86% | +91.75% |
XEF | -2.33% | -0.72% | +11.70% | +12.35% | +73.28% | |
| Flows | XEQT | +$1,071 M | +$2,919 M | +$9,467 M | +$10,494 M | +$17,216 M |
XEF | +$569 M | +$1,759 M | +$6,001 M | +$7,179 M | +$12,652 M |
XEQT vs XEF exposure
Countries
XEQT
Exposure data will be available soon
XEF
Japan
25.51%
United Kingdom
13.48%
Switzerland
9.02%
Germany
8.08%
France
7.95%
Australia
7.12%
Other
28.83%
Sectors
XEQT
Exposure data will be available soon
XEF
Finance
27.10%
Industrials
16.17%
Technology
12.65%
Healthcare
9.10%
Non-Energy Materials
7.88%
Consumer Non-Cyclicals
7.70%
Other
19.39%
As of October 28, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
XEQT
Exposure data will be available soon
XEF
US46432F8427
3.67%
ASML Holding NV
2.42%
HSBC Holdings Plc
1.31%
Roche Holding AG
1.13%
Novartis AG
1.03%
Shell Plc
0.93%
Nestlé SA
0.92%
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.
0.90%
AstraZeneca PLC
0.90%
BHP Group Ltd.
0.89%
Diversification
XEQT
Exposure data will be available soon
XEF
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 2,645 total
14.10%
Characteristics
Compare
XEQT
XEF
| Provider | iShares | iShares |
| Management | Actively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | - | MSCI EAFE IMI Net Total Return Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | - | Other |
| Asset Class | Equity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 1.58% | 2.37% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | August 7, 2019 | April 10, 2013 |
Frequently asked questions about XEQT and XEF
Which ETF has performed better year to date: XEQT or XEF?
As of October 28, 2026, XEQT has returned 15.56% year to date, while XEF has returned 11.70%. XEQT is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: XEQT or XEF?
As of October 28, 2026, XEQT manages $23.84 B in assets, while XEF manages $24.21 B. XEF is the larger fund by AUM.
How are XEQT and XEF managed?
XEQT is actively managed by iShares. It does not track an index. XEF is passively managed by iShares. It tracks the MSCI EAFE IMI Net Total Return Index - CAD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: XEQT or XEF?
Year to date, XEQT has seen +$9,466.54 M in net flows, compared with +$6,001.01 M for XEF. XEQT has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of XEQT and XEF compare?
XEQT has an expense ratio of 0.19%, while XEF has an expense ratio of 0.22%.
Recent articles about XEQT and XEF
The ETF Market Canada is brought to you by Cboe in partnership with Trackinsight SA who is providing all the data, analysis and editorial content on this site. Unless explicitly stated as such, any information that you receive is not real-time.
All content on the ETF Market Canada is for your general information use only, Cboe is not responsible for any use of content by you outside this scope. In particular, the content does not constitute any form of advice, recommendation, representation, endorsement or arrangement by Cboe and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any specific investment or other decisions.
All content on the ETF Market Canada is for your general information use only, Cboe is not responsible for any use of content by you outside this scope. In particular, the content does not constitute any form of advice, recommendation, representation, endorsement or arrangement by Cboe and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any specific investment or other decisions.