BINC vs. IWM
BINC (iShares Flexible Income Active ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BINC is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by iShares, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. BINC is actively managed, while IWM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BINC returned 7.18%/yr vs 19.66%/yr for IWM. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BINC charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
BINC vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BINC achieves a 1.44% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 21.93% return.
BINC
- 1D
- 0.11%
- 1M
- 0.69%
- YTD
- 1.44%
- 6M
- 1.48%
- 1Y
- 5.46%
- 3Y*
- 7.18%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWM
- 1D
- 0.75%
- 1M
- 3.14%
- YTD
- 21.93%
- 6M
- 18.77%
- 1Y
- 42.48%
- 3Y*
- 19.66%
- 5Y*
- 6.49%
- 10Y*
- 12.10%
BINC vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF | 1.44% | 7.57% | 5.76% | 7.12% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 21.93% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 13.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between BINC and IWM is 0.50, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.50 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 23, 2023 | 0.46 |
The correlation between BINC and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.46 to 0.50 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
BINC vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
BINC
IWM
BINC vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) 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.
| BINC | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.22 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.52 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.48 | 1.36 | +0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.04 | 3.87 | -1.83 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.96 | 13.69 | -5.74 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BINC vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BINC drawdown since its inception was -2.69%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BINC and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BINC | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -2.69% | -59.05% | +56.36% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.69% | -11.03% | +8.34% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -2.69% | -27.50% | +24.81% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -31.91% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -41.13% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.36% | -10.74% | +10.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.69% | 3.11% | -2.42% |
Volatility
BINC vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) is 0.58%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 6.31%. This indicates that BINC 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
| BINC | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.58% | 6.31% | -5.73% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.88% | 14.28% | -12.40% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.29% | 19.69% | -17.40% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 2.98% | 22.60% | -19.62% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 2.98% | 23.06% | -20.08% |
BINC vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
BINC has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
BINC vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
BINC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.83%, more than IWM's 0.89% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF | 5.83% | 5.86% | 6.14% | 3.13% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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
BINC and IWM have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWM has higher volatility (6.31%) compared to BINC (0.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BINC dropped -2.69% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 3-year performance, IWM leads with 19.66% vs 7.18% for BINC. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, BINC has been the lower-risk option at 0.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, IWM has performed better with a 19.66% return vs 7.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for BINC.
BINC has the higher dividend yield at 5.83%, compared with 0.89% for IWM.
BINC is categorized as Multisector Bonds, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for BINC and 0.19% for IWM.
BINC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.40 vs 2.17), 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 BINC 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