ACCBX vs. IWM
ACCBX (Invesco Corporate Bond Fund) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both funds - ACCBX is a Corporate Bonds fund managed by Invesco, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Over the past 10 years, ACCBX returned 2.88%/yr vs 11.58%/yr for IWM. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. ACCBX charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
ACCBX vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ACCBX achieves a 0.13% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 20.47% return. Over the past 10 years, ACCBX has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 2.88%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 11.58% annualized return.
ACCBX
- 1D
- -0.48%
- 1M
- 0.58%
- YTD
- 0.13%
- 6M
- 0.55%
- 1Y
- 5.09%
- 3Y*
- 5.12%
- 5Y*
- -0.21%
- 10Y*
- 2.88%
IWM
- 1D
- -0.96%
- 1M
- 3.82%
- YTD
- 20.47%
- 6M
- 17.64%
- 1Y
- 40.90%
- 3Y*
- 19.22%
- 5Y*
- 6.27%
- 10Y*
- 11.58%
ACCBX vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACCBX Invesco Corporate Bond Fund | 0.13% | 7.34% | 2.87% | 7.01% | -16.72% | 0.31% | 11.43% | 15.78% | -4.13% | 7.27% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 20.47% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | 14.54% | 20.03% | 25.39% | -11.12% | 14.58% |
Correlation
The correlation between ACCBX and IWM is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.38 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.31 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2000 | -0.08 |
The correlation between ACCBX and IWM shifts across timeframes, from -0.08 (all time) to 0.38 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ACCBX vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
ACCBX
IWM
ACCBX vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Corporate Bond Fund (ACCBX) 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| ACCBX | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.78 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.95 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.34 | -0.10 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.53 | 3.73 | -2.20 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.12 | 13.18 | -8.06 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ACCBX vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ACCBX drawdown since its inception was -45.26%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACCBX and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ACCBX | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -45.26% | -59.05% | +13.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.46% | -11.03% | +7.57% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.72% | -27.50% | +20.78% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.59% | -31.91% | +8.32% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -23.59% | -41.13% | +17.54% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.19% | -0.96% | -2.23% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.85% | -10.75% | -0.10% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.03% | 3.11% | -2.08% |
Volatility
ACCBX vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco Corporate Bond Fund (ACCBX) is 1.29%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 6.56%. This indicates that ACCBX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ACCBX | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.29% | 6.56% | -5.27% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.11% | 14.31% | -11.20% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.07% | 19.74% | -15.67% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.28% | 22.61% | -16.33% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.73% | 23.06% | -17.33% |
ACCBX vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
ACCBX has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
ACCBX vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
ACCBX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.02%, more than IWM's 0.90% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACCBX Invesco Corporate Bond Fund | 5.02% | 4.95% | 4.63% | 3.78% | 3.84% | 4.91% | 5.98% | 3.67% | 4.22% | 4.13% | 3.64% | 3.88% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 0.90% | 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
ACCBX and IWM have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWM has higher volatility (6.56%) compared to ACCBX (1.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACCBX dropped -45.26% vs IWM's -59.05%.
IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 1.30), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for ACCBX and IWM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer