Should I Invest in International ETFs?
U.S. stocks have led for over a decade, which makes skipping international feel smart — until leadership rotates. Here's the case for owning the rest of the world too.
Don't have time? Here's what you need to know:
- 1The U.S. is only ~60% of global stock value, so a U.S.-only portfolio skips roughly 40% of the world's companies.
- 2Market leadership rotates between countries over decades — U.S. led the 2010s, international led much of the 2000s.
- 3A common allocation is 20-40% of stocks in international; ~40% matches global market weight and Vanguard's target funds.
- 4One fund (VXUS) covers all non-U.S. stocks, or VT holds the entire world including the U.S. in a single position.
The Short Answer: Probably Some, Not Zero
For most investors, holding some international stocks is the more diversified, lower-regret choice — even though U.S. stocks have outperformed for much of the past 15 years. The United States is only about 60% of global stock-market value, which means a U.S.-only portfolio deliberately ignores roughly 40% of the world's investable companies. A single fund like VXUS covers essentially all of that missing piece in one ticker.
This isn't a prediction that international will beat U.S. — nobody knows. It's an admission that you don't know which region will lead next, so owning both means you don't have to be right about it. The question isn't really "should I invest internationally?" so much as "how much should I tilt away from a 100% home bet?"
The Home-Bias Trap
Investors everywhere overweight their own country's stocks — it's called home bias, and it feels natural because domestic companies are familiar. The trouble is that market leadership rotates between countries over long cycles. U.S. stocks dominated the 2010s, but international stocks beat U.S. stocks for much of the 2000s, and Japan led spectacularly in the 1980s before a multi-decade slump. Betting everything on one country assumes the current leader stays on top forever — a bet history repeatedly punishes.
Recent U.S. outperformance makes the case for international feel weak, which is exactly when diversification is most tempting to abandon and most valuable to keep. The investors who skipped international in 1989 because Japan looked unbeatable, or who went all-in on U.S. tech in 1999, learned that leadership is not permanent. Global diversification is insurance against being concentrated in the wrong place at the wrong time.
What International Exposure Adds
International funds split into developed markets — Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia — and emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil. Developed-market funds such as VEA are steadier; emerging-market funds like VWO are more volatile but offer exposure to faster-growing economies. A total-international fund like VXUS bundles both, and a single global fund like VT holds the entire world — U.S. and international — in one position.
Beyond diversification, international stocks have often traded at lower valuations than U.S. stocks, which historically has been associated with higher future returns, though the timing is unpredictable. They also add currency diversification. The cost is low — VXUS runs around 0.05-0.08% — so you're not paying much for the breadth.
| Fund | Covers | Role |
|---|---|---|
| VXUS | All non-U.S. (developed + emerging) | One-fund international |
| VEA | Developed markets only | Steadier international core |
| VWO | Emerging markets only | Higher-growth, higher-risk tilt |
| VT | Entire world incl. U.S. | Single-fund global portfolio |
Ready to invest? Open an IBKR account in 10 minutes and get free stock. $0 commissions on US ETFs • Fractional shares from $1 • 150+ global markets.
How Much Should You Hold?
There's no single right number, but common, defensible approaches range from 20% to 40% of your stock allocation in international, with some investors going all the way to global market weight (~40%). Vanguard's own target-date funds hold roughly 40% of their equities internationally. A simple, principled choice is to match global market weight by holding VXUS at about 40% of your stocks — then you never have to second-guess the split.
If recent U.S. dominance makes a 40% international stake feel uncomfortable, even 20-30% captures most of the diversification benefit. The practical setup is a U.S. core like VTI plus VXUS for the rest of the world, or a single VT position that does it all automatically. Pick a target, rebalance to it occasionally, and resist the urge to abandon international right after it lags.
Important: Don't chase whichever region just outperformed. The instinct to dump international after a weak decade — or pile in after a strong one — is performance-chasing, the opposite of the discipline diversification requires.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I invest in international ETFs or just stick with U.S.?
Holding some international is the more diversified choice for most investors. The U.S. is only about 60% of global market value, so a U.S.-only portfolio ignores roughly 40% of the world's companies and bets entirely on one country staying the leader. Market leadership has historically rotated between regions, so owning both means you don't have to predict which wins next.
How much of my portfolio should be international?
Common approaches range from 20% to 40% of your stock allocation. Matching global market weight means roughly 40% international, which is close to what Vanguard's target-date funds hold. If full market weight feels like too much after years of U.S. outperformance, 20-30% still captures most of the diversification benefit. There's no single correct figure — pick a target and stick to it.
What's the difference between developed and emerging market ETFs?
Developed-market funds like VEA hold companies in established economies — Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia — and tend to be steadier. Emerging-market funds like VWO hold faster-growing but more volatile economies such as China, India, and Brazil. A total-international fund like VXUS combines both, so you don't have to choose; it's the simplest way to own all non-U.S. stocks.
Why has international underperformed, and will it continue?
U.S. stocks, led by large technology companies, have outpaced international for much of the past 15 years, partly through rising valuations. Whether that continues is unknowable — international beat the U.S. for much of the 2000s, and leadership has flipped many times historically. Lower international valuations have sometimes preceded stronger returns, but the timing is unpredictable, which is the very reason to own both.
Further Reading
Free Tools
Alex Harrington
CFA Level II Candidate, Finance & Economics
Alex Harrington is an independent ETF researcher and personal finance writer with over 8 years of experience analyzing exchange-traded funds. A CFA Level II candidate with a background in economics, Alex has reviewed 800+ ETFs and helped thousands of beginners build their first investment portfolios through clear, jargon-free education.
This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Consult a licensed financial advisor before making investment decisions.