BTOT vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BTOT (iShares Total USD Fixed Income Market ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BTOT is a Total Bond Market fund tracking the Bloomberg US Total Fixed Income Market Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BTOT charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

BTOT vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Total USD Fixed Income Market ETF (BTOT) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BTOT achieves a 0.39% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return.

BTOT

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 0.29%
• YTD: 0.39%
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWM

• 1D: -1.37%
• 1M: 3.52%
• YTD: 17.07%
• 6M: 15.83%
• 1Y: 39.10%
• 3Y*: 17.88%
• 5Y*: 6.11%
• 10Y*: 10.93%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BTOT vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BTOT iShares Total USD Fixed Income Market ETF	0.39%	0.31%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	17.07%	-4.19%

Correlation

The correlation between BTOT and IWM is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2025	0.46

Return for Risk

BTOT vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 62
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 53
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

BTOT vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Total USD Fixed Income Market ETF (BTOT) 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BTOT	IWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.05	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.27	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.48	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.41	0.37	+0.05

Drawdowns

BTOT vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BTOT drawdown since its inception was -2.36%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BTOT and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	BTOT	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.36%	-59.05%	+56.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-11.03%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-27.50%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-31.91%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.18%	-1.49%	+0.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.77%	-10.77%	+10.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	3.10%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BTOT	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	5.75%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	13.53%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.70%	19.20%	-15.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.70%	22.52%	-18.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.70%	23.04%	-19.34%

BTOT vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

BTOT 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

BTOT vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

BTOT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.13%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BTOT iShares Total USD Fixed Income Market ETF	2.13%	0.22%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	0.88%	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

Can I hold both BTOT and IWM in my portfolio?

BTOT and IWM have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BTOT or IWM?

On fees, BTOT is cheaper at 0.09% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BTOT or IWM?

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

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BTOT or IWM?

BTOT has the higher dividend yield at 2.13%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.

What is the main difference between BTOT and IWM?

BTOT is categorized as Total Bond Market, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. BTOT tracks Bloomberg US Total Fixed Income Market Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for BTOT and 0.19% for IWM.