ASCE vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ASCE (Allspring SMID Core ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. ASCE is actively managed, while IWM is passively managed. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ASCE charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

ASCE vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allspring SMID Core ETF (ASCE) 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, ASCE achieves a 22.25% return, which is significantly higher than IWM's 17.07% return.

ASCE

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 5.38%
• YTD: 22.25%
• 6M: 21.06%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWM

• 1D: -1.37%
• 1M: 3.52%
• YTD: 17.07%
• 6M: 15.83%
• 1Y: 39.10%
• 3Y*: 17.88%
• 5Y*: 6.11%
• 10Y*: 10.93%

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

ASCE vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ASCE Allspring SMID Core ETF	22.25%	8.61%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	17.07%	11.95%

Correlation

The correlation between ASCE 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 9, 2025	0.90

Return for Risk

ASCE vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

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.

ASCE vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allspring SMID Core ETF (ASCE) 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ASCE	IWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.05	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.27	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.48	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.92	0.37	+1.55

Drawdowns

ASCE vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASCE drawdown since its inception was -9.22%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASCE and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	ASCE	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.22%	-59.05%	+49.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-11.03%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-27.50%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-31.91%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.38%	-1.49%	+1.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.10%	-10.77%	+8.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	3.10%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	ASCE	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	5.75%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	13.53%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.25%	19.20%	+0.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.25%	22.52%	-3.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.25%	23.04%	-3.79%

ASCE vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ASCE has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

ASCE vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

ASCE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.18%, less than IWM's 0.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ASCE Allspring SMID Core ETF	0.18%	0.22%	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 ASCE and IWM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, ASCE 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 ETF is better, ASCE 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, ASCE or IWM?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.38% for ASCE.

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

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.88%, compared with 0.18% for ASCE.

What is the main difference between ASCE and IWM?

They also come from different issuers: Allspring and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for ASCE and 0.19% for IWM.