BND vs. IWM
BND (Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BND is a Total Bond Market fund tracking the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Float Adjusted Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, BND returned 1.60%/yr vs 11.14%/yr for IWM. At a correlation of -0.13, they often move in opposite directions. BND charges 0.03%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
BND vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BND achieves a 0.64% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 18.19% return. Over the past 10 years, BND has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 1.60%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 11.14% annualized return.
BND
- 1D
- 0.58%
- 1M
- 0.58%
- YTD
- 0.64%
- 6M
- 0.72%
- 1Y
- 4.91%
- 3Y*
- 4.06%
- 5Y*
- 0.06%
- 10Y*
- 1.60%
IWM
- 1D
- 2.96%
- 1M
- 2.77%
- YTD
- 18.19%
- 6M
- 13.23%
- 1Y
- 37.41%
- 3Y*
- 17.34%
- 5Y*
- 5.88%
- 10Y*
- 11.14%
BND vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BND Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF | 0.64% | 7.08% | 1.38% | 5.65% | -13.11% | -1.86% | 7.71% | 8.84% | -0.12% | 3.57% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 18.19% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | 14.54% | 20.03% | 25.39% | -11.12% | 14.58% |
Correlation
The correlation between BND and IWM is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.19 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.04 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 10, 2007 | -0.13 |
The correlation between BND and IWM shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (all time) to 0.34 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
BND vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
BND
IWM
BND vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND) 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.
| BND | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.59 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.67 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | 1.31 | -0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.84 | 3.41 | -1.56 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.38 | 12.04 | -6.65 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BND vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BND drawdown since its inception was -18.58%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BND and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BND | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.58% | -59.05% | +40.47% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.68% | -11.03% | +8.35% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -5.92% | -27.50% | +21.58% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.91% | -31.91% | +14.00% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -18.58% | -41.13% | +22.55% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.00% | -0.55% | -1.45% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.06% | -10.76% | +7.70% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.91% | 3.12% | -2.21% |
Volatility
BND vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND) is 1.27%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 7.12%. This indicates that BND 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
| BND | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.27% | 7.12% | -5.85% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.75% | 14.32% | -11.57% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.75% | 19.72% | -15.97% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.03% | 22.61% | -16.58% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.53% | 23.08% | -17.55% |
BND vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
BND has a 0.03% 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
BND vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
BND's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.95%, more than IWM's 0.87% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BND Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF | 3.95% | 3.86% | 3.67% | 3.09% | 2.60% | 2.12% | 2.38% | 2.72% | 2.81% | 2.54% | 2.51% | 2.57% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 0.87% | 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
BND and IWM have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWM has higher volatility (7.12%) compared to BND (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BND dropped -18.58% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 11.14% vs 1.60% for BND. On fees, BND is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, BND has been the lower-risk option at 1.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, IWM has performed better with a 11.14% return vs 1.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BND is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.
BND has the higher dividend yield at 3.95%, compared with 0.87% for IWM.
BND is categorized as Total Bond Market, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. BND tracks Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Float Adjusted Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: Vanguard and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.03% for BND and 0.19% for IWM.
IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 1.32), 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 BND 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