AFSC vs. IWMW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) and IWMW (iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AFSC is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Aberdeen, while IWMW is a Derivative Income fund tracking the Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index. AFSC is actively managed, while IWMW is passively managed. Over the past year, AFSC returned 27.01% vs 24.62% for IWMW. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AFSC charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IWMW.

Performance

AFSC vs. IWMW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) and iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFSC achieves a 16.58% return, which is significantly higher than IWMW's 8.49% return.

AFSC

• 1D: -0.69%
• 1M: 1.96%
• YTD: 16.58%
• 6M: 13.48%
• 1Y: 27.01%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWMW

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 3.04%
• YTD: 8.49%
• 6M: 8.94%
• 1Y: 24.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AFSC vs. IWMW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	16.58%	2.67%
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	8.49%	2.71%

Correlation

The correlation between AFSC and IWMW is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2025	0.84

The correlation between AFSC and IWMW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

AFSC vs. IWMW — Risk / Return Rank

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

AFSC

AFSC Risk / Return Rank: 47
AFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
AFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
AFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 38
AFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
AFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 57

IWMW

IWMW Risk / Return Rank: 64
IWMW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
IWMW Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
IWMW Omega Ratio Rank: 66
IWMW Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
IWMW 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.

AFSC vs. IWMW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) and iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW). 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.

	AFSC	IWMW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	2.01	-0.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.11	2.75	-0.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.40	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.64	3.56	-0.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.96	12.33	-2.37
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AFSC vs. IWMW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFSC Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is comparable to the IWMW Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFSC and IWMW, 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

	AFSC	IWMW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.46	2.01	-0.55
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	0.64	+0.03

Drawdowns

AFSC vs. IWMW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFSC drawdown since its inception was -21.68%, roughly equal to the maximum IWMW drawdown of -21.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFSC and IWMW.

Drawdown Indicators

	AFSC	IWMW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.68%	-21.82%	+0.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.29%	-6.94%	-3.35%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.79%	-0.34%	-1.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.15%	-3.85%	-0.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.72%	2.00%	+0.72%

Volatility

AFSC vs. IWMW - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) has a higher volatility of 5.49% compared to iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) at 3.03%. This indicates that AFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWMW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AFSC	IWMW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.49%	3.03%	+2.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.99%	8.75%	+5.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.59%	12.32%	+6.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.57%	16.12%	+6.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.57%	16.12%	+6.45%

AFSC vs. IWMW - Expense Ratio Comparison

AFSC has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than IWMW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

AFSC vs. IWMW - Dividend Comparison

AFSC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than IWMW's 22.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	0.07%	0.08%	0.00%
IWMW iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF	22.40%	20.98%	17.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AFSC and IWMW in my portfolio?

AFSC and IWMW have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AFSC or IWMW?

AFSC has higher volatility (5.49%) compared to IWMW (3.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFSC dropped -21.68% vs IWMW's -21.82%.

Which ETF is better, AFSC or IWMW?

On 1-year performance, AFSC leads with 27.01% vs 24.62% for IWMW. On fees, IWMW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, IWMW has been the lower-risk option at 3.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AFSC or IWMW?

Over the 1-year period, AFSC has performed better with a 27.01% return vs 24.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AFSC or IWMW?

IWMW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AFSC or IWMW?

IWMW has the higher dividend yield at 22.40%, compared with 0.07% for AFSC.

What is the main difference between AFSC and IWMW?

AFSC is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while IWMW is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for AFSC and 0.39% for IWMW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWMW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.01 vs 1.46), 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.