CNYA vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CNYA (iShares MSCI China A ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CNYA is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNYA returned -1.06%/yr vs 6.11%/yr for IWM. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CNYA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

CNYA vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) 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, CNYA achieves a 9.30% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return.

CNYA

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 2.34%
• YTD: 9.30%
• 6M: 13.79%
• 1Y: 37.95%
• 3Y*: 11.00%
• 5Y*: -1.06%
• 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)

CNYA vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	9.30%	26.48%	10.78%	-13.76%	-26.51%	3.53%	41.54%	35.95%	-26.56%	30.99%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	17.07%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	-20.48%	14.54%	20.03%	25.39%	-11.12%	14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between CNYA and IWM is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.27
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 16, 2016	0.35

CNYA vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CNYA	IWM
Technology	30.0%	19.5%
Industrials	18.3%	17.1%
Financial Services	17.0%	15.8%
Basic Materials	10.6%	4.5%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	2.1%
Consumer Cyclical	5.7%	7.8%
Healthcare	3.8%	15.8%
Energy	3.2%	6.0%
Utilities	3.2%	3.0%
Real Estate	0.7%	5.7%
Communication Services	0.6%	2.0%

Return for Risk

CNYA vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNYA

CNYA Risk / Return Rank: 71
CNYA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
CNYA Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
CNYA Omega Ratio Rank: 64
CNYA Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
CNYA Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

CNYA vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) 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.

	CNYA	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.20	2.05	+0.15
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.02	2.85	+0.17
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.34	+0.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.02	3.56	+1.46
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	14.84	12.64	+2.19
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CNYA vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNYA Sharpe Ratio is 2.20, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNYA and IWM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CNYA	IWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.20	2.05	+0.15
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.04	0.27	-0.32
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.48	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.28	0.37	-0.09

Drawdowns

CNYA vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNYA drawdown since its inception was -49.49%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNYA and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNYA	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-49.49%	-59.05%	+9.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.59%	-11.03%	+3.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.35%	-27.50%	-5.85%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.70%	-31.91%	-12.79%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.42%	-1.49%	-11.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.69%	-10.77%	-9.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.56%	3.10%	-0.54%

Volatility

CNYA vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) has a higher volatility of 6.42% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 5.75%. This indicates that CNYA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNYA	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.42%	5.75%	+0.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.30%	13.53%	-1.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.32%	19.20%	-1.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.81%	22.52%	+1.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.56%	23.04%	+0.52%

CNYA vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNYA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNYA vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

CNYA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	1.75%	1.92%	2.51%	4.23%	2.69%	1.11%	1.06%	1.21%	3.92%	0.97%	1.38%	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 CNYA and IWM in my portfolio?

CNYA and IWM have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CNYA or IWM?

CNYA has higher volatility (6.42%) compared to IWM (5.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CNYA dropped -49.49% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, CNYA or IWM?

On 5-year performance, IWM leads with 6.11% vs -1.06% for CNYA. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 5.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CNYA or IWM?

Over the 5-year period, IWM has performed better with a 6.11% return vs -1.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNYA or IWM?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CNYA.

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

CNYA has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.

What is the main difference between CNYA and IWM?

CNYA is categorized as China Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. CNYA tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CNYA and 0.19% for IWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CNYA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs 2.05), 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.