PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
BBSC vs. IWM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

BBSC vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

BBSC (JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds - BBSC tracks the Morningstar US Small Cap Target Market Exposure Extended Index while IWM tracks the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BBSC returned 6.95%/yr vs 6.33%/yr for IWM. With a 0.99 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. BBSC charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

BBSC vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF (BBSC) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with BBSC having a 20.49% return and IWM slightly higher at 21.03%.

BBSC

1D
0.64%
1M
4.77%
YTD
20.49%
6M
17.40%
1Y
38.10%
3Y*
19.49%
5Y*
6.95%
10Y*
—

IWM

1D
0.46%
1M
4.31%
YTD
21.03%
6M
17.89%
1Y
39.77%
3Y*
19.40%
5Y*
6.33%
10Y*
11.63%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BBSC vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
BBSC
JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF		20.49%10.38%12.31%20.07%-19.75%15.44%11.94%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		21.03%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%10.72%

Correlation

The correlation between BBSC and IWM is 0.98 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.98

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.99

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.99

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 17, 2020

0.99

The correlation between BBSC and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

BBSC vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
BBSC
IWM

Technology

20.3%
20.1%

Financial Services

16.7%
15.5%

Healthcare

15.5%
15.6%

Industrials

15.0%
17.3%

Consumer Cyclical

8.7%
8.0%

Real Estate

7.5%
5.5%

Energy

5.8%
6.0%

Basic Materials

4.0%
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

3.0%
2.0%

Communication Services

2.3%
1.7%

Utilities

1.2%
3.1%

Technology

BBSC
20.3%
IWM
20.1%

Financial Services

BBSC
16.7%
IWM
15.5%

Healthcare

BBSC
15.5%
IWM
15.6%

Industrials

BBSC
15.0%
IWM
17.3%

Consumer Cyclical

BBSC
8.7%
IWM
8.0%

Real Estate

BBSC
7.5%
IWM
5.5%

Energy

BBSC
5.8%
IWM
6.0%

Basic Materials

BBSC
4.0%
IWM
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

BBSC
3.0%
IWM
2.0%

Communication Services

BBSC
2.3%
IWM
1.7%

Utilities

BBSC
1.2%
IWM
3.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with BBSC:
BBSC vs. VBBBSC vs. FJACXBBSC vs. AVSCBBSC vs. VBRBBSC vs. SLYGBBSC vs. XSVMBBSC vs. VIOO
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA

Return for Risk

BBSC vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
BBSC
BBSC Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
BBSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BBSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
BBSC Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
BBSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
BBSC Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

BBSC vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF (BBSC) 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.

BBSCIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.98
2.03

-0.05

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.79
2.80

-0.01

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.33

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.01

3.62

+0.39

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.12

12.82

+0.30

BBSC vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BBSC Sharpe Ratio is 1.98, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BBSC 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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

BBSC vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BBSC drawdown since its inception was -30.96%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BBSC and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

BBSCIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-30.96%

-59.05%

+28.09%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.54%

-11.03%

+1.49%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.32%

-27.50%

-1.82%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.96%

-31.91%

+0.95%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-41.13%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.50%

+0.50%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.38%

-10.74%

-0.64%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.91%

3.11%

-0.20%

Volatility

BBSC vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF (BBSC) is 5.45%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 6.52%. This indicates that BBSC 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

BBSCIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.45%

6.52%

-1.07%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.39%

14.30%

-0.91%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.36%

19.71%

-0.35%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.97%

22.60%

+0.37%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.83%

23.06%

-0.23%

BBSC vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

BBSC has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

BBSC vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

BBSC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, more than IWM's 0.90% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BBSC
JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF		1.01%1.13%1.29%1.58%1.37%1.06%0.18%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
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

With a correlation of 0.98, BBSC 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.

IWM has higher volatility (6.52%) compared to BBSC (5.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BBSC dropped -30.96% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 5-year performance, BBSC leads with 6.95% vs 6.33% for IWM. On fees, BBSC is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, BBSC has been the lower-risk option at 5.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, BBSC has performed better with a 6.95% return vs 6.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BBSC is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

BBSC has the higher dividend yield at 1.01%, compared with 0.90% for IWM.

BBSC tracks Morningstar US Small Cap Target Market Exposure Extended Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: JPMorgan and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for BBSC and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 1.98), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BBSC 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