GIEQ vs JINT
Goldman Sachs Data Enhanced International Equity ETF vs Janus Henderson International Core Alpha ETF
Which is better, GIEQ or JINT?
GIEQ costs less.
GIEQ has a lower expense ratio. GIEQ is less concentrated, with 15.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 22.2%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | GIEQ | JINT |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.30%Best | 0.35% |
| AUM | $66M | $10M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 574 | 208 |
| YTD Return | +2.38%Best | -1.01% |
| Top 10 Weight | 15.8%Best | 22.2% |
| Fund Family | Goldman Sachs Asset Management | Janus Henderson Investors |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 19, 2026 | Sep 15, 2026 |
Not shown on this pair: 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
GIEQ vs JINT growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
GIEQ vs JINT Performance
Goldman Sachs Data Enhanced International Equity ETF (GIEQ) is an ETF from Goldman Sachs Asset Management and Janus Henderson International Core Alpha ETF (JINT) is an ETF from Janus Henderson Investors. Year to date, GIEQ is up 2.38% versus a loss of 1.01% for JINT.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GIEQ charges 0.30% per year while JINT charges 0.35%. On a $10,000 position that is $30 vs $35 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GIEQ currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for JINT.
Holdings Overlap
15.5% of GIEQ's money is in holdings JINT also owns. 27.2% of JINT's money is in holdings GIEQ also owns.
JINT and GIEQ share little of their money.
25 positions in common, counted across the 285 positions we hold weights for in GIEQ and 98 in JINT, against full books of 574 and 208.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in GIEQ | Weight in JINT | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASML:ASASML HOLDING NV | 3.30% | 1.42% | 1.88% |
| NOVN:SMNovartis Ag Ordinary Shares | 0.81% | 3.09% | 2.28% |
| SHEL:LNShell plc | 0.81% | 3.03% | 2.22% |
| BHP:AUBhp Group Ltd | 1.34% | 2.19% | 0.85% |
| BBVA:MABanco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A. Reg Shs | 0.85% | 2.00% | 1.15% |
| 2914:TKJapan Tobacco Inc. | 0.65% | 1.91% | 1.26% |
| BATS:LNBritish American Tobacco Plc Common Stock GBP 25 | 0.32% | 2.13% | 1.81% |
| 8035:JPTokyo Electron Ltd. Com Stk | 0.64% | 1.58% | 0.94% |
| HNR1:FFHannover Rueck Se | 0.40% | 1.65% | 1.25% |
| 285A:JPKioxia Holdings Corp | 0.48% | 1.56% | 1.08% |
27.2% of JINT is already inside GIEQ.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GIEQ or JINT?
GIEQ has an expense ratio of 0.30% while JINT charges 0.35%. GIEQ is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between GIEQ and JINT?
27.2% of JINT's money is in holdings GIEQ also owns. 27.2% of JINT's is in holdings GIEQ also owns. They hold 25 positions in common, counted across the 285 positions we hold weights for in GIEQ and 98 in JINT.
Which pays a higher dividend, GIEQ or JINT?
GIEQ yields 0.00% while JINT yields 0.00%, so JINT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is JINT better than GIEQ?
GIEQ has a lower expense ratio. GIEQ is less concentrated, with 15.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 22.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.