BINC vs. IWM
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM).
BINC and IWM are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. BINC is an actively managed fund by iShares. It was launched on May 19, 2023. IWM is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell 2000 Index. It was launched on May 22, 2000.
Performance
BINC vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
BINC vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF | -0.78% | 7.57% | 5.76% | 7.08% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 0.93% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 14.39% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BINC achieves a -0.78% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 0.93% return.
BINC
- 1D
- 0.33%
- 1M
- -2.11%
- YTD
- -0.78%
- 6M
- 0.65%
- 1Y
- 5.08%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWM
- 1D
- 3.50%
- 1M
- -4.96%
- YTD
- 0.93%
- 6M
- 3.02%
- 1Y
- 25.66%
- 3Y*
- 12.94%
- 5Y*
- 3.34%
- 10Y*
- 9.76%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
BINC vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
BINC has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.
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.
| BINC | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.74 | 1.11 | +0.63 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.29 | 1.66 | +0.63 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | 1.21 | +0.17 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.91 | 1.82 | +0.09 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.93 | 6.76 | +1.17 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BINC | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.74 | 1.11 | +0.63 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.15 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.43 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 2.28 | 0.34 | +1.94 |
Correlation
The correlation between BINC and IWM is 0.44, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Dividends
BINC vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
BINC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.91%, more than IWM's 1.02% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF | 5.91% | 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 | 1.02% | 1.04% | 1.15% | 1.35% | 1.48% | 0.94% | 1.04% | 1.26% | 1.40% | 1.26% | 1.38% | 1.54% |
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 graphics...
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% | -13.74% | +11.05% |
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 | -2.14% | -7.91% | +5.77% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.33% | -10.83% | +10.50% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.65% | 3.70% | -3.05% |
Volatility
BINC vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) is 1.25%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 7.47%. 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 graphics...
Volatility by Period
| BINC | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.25% | 7.47% | -6.22% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.69% | 14.47% | -12.78% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.94% | 23.18% | -20.24% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.03% | 22.55% | -19.52% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.03% | 22.99% | -19.96% |