BTOT vs. IWM

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Total USD Fixed Income Market ETF (BTOT) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM).

BTOT and IWM are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. BTOT is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Bloomberg US Total Fixed Income Market Index. It was launched on Dec 10, 2025. IWM is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell 2000 Index. It was launched on May 22, 2000. Both BTOT and IWM are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

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.

BTOT vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BTOT iShares Total USD Fixed Income Market ETF	-0.02%	0.31%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	1.56%	-4.19%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BTOT achieves a -0.02% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 1.56% return.

BTOT

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: -1.19%
• YTD: -0.02%
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWM

• 1D: 0.63%
• 1M: -5.23%
• YTD: 1.56%
• 6M: 3.44%
• 1Y: 26.43%
• 3Y*: 13.18%
• 5Y*: 3.47%
• 10Y*: 9.83%

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

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%.

IWM

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

BTOT

iShares Total USD Fixed Income Market ETF

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: 65
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 56
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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	—	1.15	—
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	0.27	0.34	-0.08

Correlation

The correlation between BTOT and IWM is 0.26, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

BTOT vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

BTOT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.32%, more than IWM's 1.02% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BTOT iShares Total USD Fixed Income Market ETF	1.32%	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	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

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	—	-13.74%	—
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	-1.59%	-7.33%	+5.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.51%	-10.83%	+10.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	3.73%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BTOT	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	7.36%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	14.48%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.67%	23.18%	-19.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.67%	22.54%	-18.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.67%	22.99%	-19.32%