BGRFX vs. IWM
BGRFX (Baron Growth Fund) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both funds - BGRFX is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund managed by Baron Capital Group, Inc., while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Over the past 10 years, BGRFX returned 6.76%/yr vs 11.58%/yr for IWM. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BGRFX charges 1.29%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
BGRFX vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BGRFX achieves a -16.71% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 20.47% return. Over the past 10 years, BGRFX has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 6.76%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 11.58% annualized return.
BGRFX
- 1D
- -2.42%
- 1M
- -6.28%
- YTD
- -16.71%
- 6M
- -17.75%
- 1Y
- -24.91%
- 3Y*
- -7.28%
- 5Y*
- -6.07%
- 10Y*
- 6.76%
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%
BGRFX vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BGRFX Baron Growth Fund | -16.71% | -14.51% | 4.62% | 14.68% | -22.55% | 19.82% | 32.77% | 40.18% | -2.93% | 27.14% |
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 BGRFX and IWM is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.33 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.60 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.73 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.77 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2000 | 0.86 |
Over the past year, the correlation between BGRFX and IWM has dropped to 0.33 - well below their long-term average of 0.86, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
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
BGRFX vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
BGRFX
IWM
BGRFX vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baron Growth Fund (BGRFX) 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.
| BGRFX | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.31 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -4.57 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.81 | 1.34 | -0.54 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.88 | 3.73 | -4.61 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.50 | 13.18 | -14.69 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BGRFX vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BGRFX drawdown since its inception was -56.10%, roughly equal to the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGRFX and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BGRFX | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -56.10% | -59.05% | +2.95% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -27.19% | -11.03% | -16.16% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -32.90% | -27.50% | -5.40% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -34.90% | -31.91% | -2.99% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -41.14% | -41.13% | -0.01% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -34.90% | -0.96% | -33.94% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.87% | -10.75% | +1.88% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 15.93% | 3.11% | +12.82% |
Volatility
BGRFX vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
Baron Growth Fund (BGRFX) has a higher volatility of 6.99% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 6.56%. This indicates that BGRFX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BGRFX | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.99% | 6.56% | +0.43% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.66% | 14.31% | +1.35% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.56% | 19.74% | -0.18% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.24% | 22.61% | -2.37% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.20% | 23.06% | -1.86% |
BGRFX vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
BGRFX has a 1.29% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
BGRFX vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
BGRFX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 25.11%, more than IWM's 0.90% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BGRFX Baron Growth Fund | 25.11% | 20.91% | 12.05% | 1.79% | 6.02% | 7.73% | 4.64% | 3.68% | 8.38% | 11.68% | 12.84% | 9.53% |
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
BGRFX and IWM have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BGRFX has higher volatility (6.99%) compared to IWM (6.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BGRFX dropped -56.10% vs IWM's -59.05%.
IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs -1.23), 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 BGRFX 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