CNYA vs. IWM
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM).
CNYA and IWM are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CNYA is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. It was launched on Jun 13, 2016. 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 CNYA 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
CNYA vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
CNYA vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF | -0.93% | 26.48% | 10.78% | -13.76% | -26.51% | 3.53% | 41.54% | 35.95% | -26.56% | 30.99% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 1.56% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | 14.54% | 20.03% | 25.39% | -11.12% | 14.58% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CNYA achieves a -0.93% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 1.56% return.
CNYA
- 1D
- 0.23%
- 1M
- -5.18%
- YTD
- -0.93%
- 6M
- 1.32%
- 1Y
- 25.22%
- 3Y*
- 4.59%
- 5Y*
- -1.42%
- 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%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CNYA vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
CNYA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
CNYA vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
CNYA
IWM
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 ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.34 | 1.15 | +0.20 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.84 | 1.70 | +0.14 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.22 | +0.05 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.15 | 1.93 | +0.23 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.28 | 7.08 | +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. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CNYA | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.34 | 1.15 | +0.20 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.06 | 0.15 | -0.21 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.43 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.23 | 0.34 | -0.11 |
Correlation
The correlation between CNYA and IWM is 0.34, 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
CNYA vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
CNYA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.93%, more than IWM's 1.02% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF | 1.93% | 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 | 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
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.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNYA | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -49.49% | -59.05% | +9.56% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.47% | -13.74% | +2.27% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.11% | -31.91% | -13.20% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -41.13% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -21.52% | -7.33% | -14.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.77% | -10.83% | -9.94% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.67% | 3.73% | -1.06% |
Volatility
CNYA vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) is 4.99%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 7.36%. This indicates that CNYA 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 graphics...
Volatility by Period
| CNYA | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.99% | 7.36% | -2.37% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.62% | 14.48% | -2.86% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.85% | 23.18% | -4.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.71% | 22.54% | +1.17% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.60% | 22.99% | +0.61% |