First, as hush states, ENFJ in the widely applied model (originating from a Harold Grant) is Fe-leading.
I will wager what you're generally wondering about is the issue of being "close" between two types. I think the best way to understand this is to realize that both C.G. Jung and most modern research suggests strongly that dimensions of personality are normally distributed with a significant middle group, meaning it would be more empirically accurate to type many people as XNFJs and INFX's than to force them into choosing a side.
The unfortunate thing is a lot of people joining MBTI communities are basically IN's who aren't sure of the other 2 letters, and more or less assume they can apply the model of Harold Grant to tie-break, despite getting mixed results repeatedly on T/F and J/P. This is unfortunate, because these 2 systems hardly determine each other and are significantly independent. Deciding one is an INFJ because one is sure of IN and is sure of using Fe-Ti or some such thing is meaningless.
What's even more pressing is that the Harold Grant model is one of many models among the most prominent Jungian-related theorists, so I'd call it more a way of looking at things/collection of archetypes than an empirically exhaustive and thorough model of personality. To give example, Jung expressly types nobody as having NiFeTiSe, but he types at least one person as having NiTi>feeling and sensation. And Isabel Myers acknowledged this difference to be widely adopted by Jungian analysts, as well as that her model was far from the normally accepted one.
Now that the MBTI is popular, the Grant model has simply caught on, but a lot of people find troubles really making sense of its assumptions, and that's because they don't make any kind of absolute sense. You can still derive interesting patterns about personality from it, however.
Long story short, I'd not worry too much about deciding if someone is FeNi or NiFe if they're really close. To this day, people don't converge on even Jung's type -- he typed himself as an intuitive-thinker and an introvert, but there are conflicting accounts of his thinking vs intuitive dominance. This includes:
- himself typing himself a thinking-dominant in his past
- John Beebe believing he's Ni-dom (in his model Te-aux)
- von Franz, his top protege thinking he is Ni-dom (Ti-aux)
- Sharp, responsible for the Jung lexicon, typing him as a Ti-dom.
If you derive some special meaning from making this decision for your own philosophical reasons good! But please don't make the mistake of thinking there's an objective consensus.
I myself relate most to infj however could also be an infp.