3191.HK vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

3191.HK (Global X China Semiconductor ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - 3191.HK is a China Equities fund tracking the Factset China Semiconductor Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, 3191.HK returned 9.76%/yr vs 6.32%/yr for IWM. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. 3191.HK charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

3191.HK vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a HK$10,000 investment in Global X China Semiconductor ETF (3191.HK) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

3191.HK is traded in HKD, while IWM is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the IWM values have been converted to HKD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, 3191.HK achieves a 57.21% return, which is significantly higher than IWM's 17.85% return.

3191.HK

• 1D: 3.51%
• 1M: 21.08%
• YTD: 57.21%
• 6M: 66.97%
• 1Y: 130.69%
• 3Y*: 30.20%
• 5Y*: 9.76%
• 10Y*: —

IWM

• 1D: -1.39%
• 1M: 3.56%
• YTD: 17.85%
• 6M: 16.60%
• 1Y: 38.94%
• 3Y*: 17.87%
• 5Y*: 6.32%
• 10Y*: 11.02%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

3191.HK vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
3191.HK Global X China Semiconductor ETF	57.21%	41.08%	11.15%	-6.56%	-39.25%	19.31%	-1.68%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	17.85%	12.87%	10.81%	16.81%	-20.35%	15.16%	26.47%

Correlation

The correlation between 3191.HK and IWM is 0.14, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.14
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.14
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 10, 2020	0.10

Return for Risk

3191.HK vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

3191.HK

3191.HK Risk / Return Rank: 87
3191.HK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
3191.HK Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
3191.HK Omega Ratio Rank: 82
3191.HK Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
3191.HK Martin Ratio Rank: 81

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 62
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 53
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

3191.HK vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X China Semiconductor ETF (3191.HK) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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.

	3191.HK	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.47	2.04	+1.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.87	2.84	+1.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.34	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.32	3.70	+2.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.08	13.05	+3.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

3191.HK vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current 3191.HK Sharpe Ratio is 3.47, which is higher than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of 3191.HK and IWM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	3191.HK	IWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.47	2.04	+1.43
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.25	0.28	-0.03
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.48	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.23	0.33	-0.10

Drawdowns

3191.HK vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum 3191.HK drawdown since its inception was -63.76%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for 3191.HK and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	3191.HK	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-63.76%	-59.36%	-4.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.43%	-10.58%	-10.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-40.94%	-27.62%	-13.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-63.76%	-31.38%	-32.38%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.90%	-1.47%	-5.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.84%	-11.42%	-22.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.32%	2.99%	+5.33%

Volatility

3191.HK vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

Global X China Semiconductor ETF (3191.HK) has a higher volatility of 16.73% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 5.78%. This indicates that 3191.HK's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	3191.HK	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.73%	5.78%	+10.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.08%	13.53%	+15.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.04%	19.21%	+19.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	40.11%	22.53%	+17.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.47%	23.02%	+16.45%

3191.HK vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

3191.HK has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

3191.HK vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

3191.HK has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.88%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
3191.HK Global X China Semiconductor ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	0.88%	1.04%	1.15%	1.35%	1.48%	0.94%	1.04%	1.26%	1.40%	1.26%	1.38%	1.54%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both 3191.HK and IWM in my portfolio?

3191.HK and IWM have a correlation of 0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, 3191.HK or IWM?

On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, 3191.HK or IWM?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for 3191.HK.

What is the main difference between 3191.HK and IWM?

3191.HK is categorized as China Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. 3191.HK tracks Factset China Semiconductor Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for 3191.HK and 0.19% for IWM.