AFMC vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

AFMC (First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AFMC is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by First Trust, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. AFMC is actively managed, while IWM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, AFMC returned 11.23%/yr vs 6.77%/yr for IWM. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AFMC charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

AFMC vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF (AFMC) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFMC achieves a 18.08% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 21.64% return.

AFMC

• 1D: 0.85%
• 1M: 3.30%
• YTD: 18.08%
• 6M: 15.62%
• 1Y: 30.69%
• 3Y*: 20.43%
• 5Y*: 11.23%
• 10Y*: —

IWM

• 1D: 0.88%
• 1M: 4.83%
• YTD: 21.64%
• 6M: 18.08%
• 1Y: 44.01%
• 3Y*: 19.60%
• 5Y*: 6.77%
• 10Y*: 11.68%

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

AFMC vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AFMC First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF	18.08%	10.23%	19.06%	21.46%	-15.55%	25.75%	5.87%	1.97%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	21.64%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	-20.48%	14.54%	20.03%	4.13%

Correlation

The correlation between AFMC and IWM is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2019	0.91

The correlation between AFMC and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

AFMC vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AFMC	IWM
Technology	20.9%	20.1%
Industrials	20.7%	17.3%
Consumer Cyclical	13.4%	8.0%
Financial Services	12.8%	15.5%
Healthcare	9.3%	15.6%
Real Estate	6.7%	5.5%
Energy	5.4%	6.0%
Basic Materials	5.3%	4.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.8%	2.0%
Communication Services	1.6%	1.7%
Utilities	1.1%	3.1%

Return for Risk

AFMC vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

AFMC

AFMC Risk / Return Rank: 68
AFMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
AFMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
AFMC Omega Ratio Rank: 59
AFMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
AFMC Martin Ratio Rank: 74

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 72
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 63
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

AFMC vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF (AFMC) 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.

	AFMC	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.03	2.24	-0.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.91	3.05	-0.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.36	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.76	4.01	-0.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.54	14.19	-0.64

AFMC vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFMC Sharpe Ratio is 2.03, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFMC 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.

Drawdowns

AFMC vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFMC drawdown since its inception was -42.14%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFMC and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	AFMC	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.14%	-59.05%	+16.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.20%	-11.03%	+2.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.99%	-27.50%	+5.51%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.40%	-31.91%	+6.51%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.22%	0.00%	-0.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.56%	-10.75%	+3.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.27%	3.11%	-0.84%

Volatility

AFMC vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF (AFMC) is 4.54%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 6.47%. This indicates that AFMC 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.

Volatility by Period

	AFMC	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.54%	6.47%	-1.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.30%	14.28%	-2.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.22%	19.75%	-4.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.96%	22.60%	-3.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.89%	23.09%	-0.20%

AFMC vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

AFMC has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

AFMC vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

AFMC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.77%, less than IWM's 0.89% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AFMC First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF	0.77%	0.96%	0.64%	0.87%	1.42%	0.84%	1.05%	0.29%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	0.89%	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 AFMC and IWM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, AFMC and IWM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, AFMC or IWM?

IWM has higher volatility (6.47%) compared to AFMC (4.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFMC dropped -42.14% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, AFMC or IWM?

On 5-year performance, AFMC leads with 11.23% vs 6.77% for IWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, AFMC has been the lower-risk option at 4.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AFMC or IWM?

Over the 5-year period, AFMC has performed better with a 11.23% return vs 6.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AFMC or IWM?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFMC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AFMC or IWM?

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.89%, compared with 0.77% for AFMC.

What is the main difference between AFMC and IWM?

AFMC is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for AFMC and 0.19% for IWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 2.03), 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.