BTOT vs. IWM
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. Their 0.48 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. BTOT charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
BTOT vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BTOT achieves a -0.09% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 20.84% return.
BTOT
- 1D
- 0.23%
- 1M
- -0.91%
- 6M
- -0.22%
- YTD
- -0.09%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
IWM
- 1D
- 1.72%
- 1M
- -0.46%
- 6M
- 13.45%
- YTD
- 20.84%
- 1Y
- 39.26%
- 3Y*
- 16.48%
- 5Y*
- 7.64%
- 10Y*
- 10.63%
- ALL TIME*
- 8.80%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $31.83K | $48.31K | $75.14K | |
| $6.77B | $6.36B | $7.44B |
BTOT vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BTOT iShares Total USD Fixed Income Market ETF | -0.09% | 0.12% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 20.84% | -3.07% |
Correlation
The correlation between BTOT and IWM is 0.48, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 11, 2025 | 0.48 |
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
BTOT vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
BTOT
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IWM
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.
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.
| BTOT | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.34 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.58 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 12.68 | — |
Loading charts...
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BTOT | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.66% | -1.41% | -0.25% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.86% | -10.71% | +9.85% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 3.11% | — |
Volatility
BTOT vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BTOT | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 4.21% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 14.13% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.62% | 19.36% | -15.74% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.62% | 22.50% | -18.88% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.62% | 23.02% | -19.40% |
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 2.93%, more than IWM's 0.90% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BTOT iShares Total USD Fixed Income Market ETF | 2.93% | 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 | 0.90% | 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
BTOT and IWM have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
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.
BTOT is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.
BTOT has the higher dividend yield at 2.93%, compared with 0.90% for 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.
Find the right allocation for BTOT 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