PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
DBC vs. IWM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

DBC vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 12, 2026

DBC (Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DBC is a Commodities fund tracking the DBIQ Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Index Excess Return, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, DBC returned 8.31%/yr vs 11.14%/yr for IWM. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DBC charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

DBC vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund (DBC) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DBC achieves a 29.03% return, which is significantly higher than IWM's 18.19% return. Over the past 10 years, DBC has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 8.31%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 11.14% annualized return.

DBC

1D
-1.10%
1M
-8.96%
YTD
29.03%
6M
29.04%
1Y
35.74%
3Y*
13.82%
5Y*
11.52%
10Y*
8.31%

IWM

1D
2.96%
1M
2.77%
YTD
18.19%
6M
13.23%
1Y
37.41%
3Y*
17.34%
5Y*
5.88%
10Y*
11.14%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

DBC vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
DBC
Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund		29.03%8.10%2.18%-6.19%19.34%41.36%-7.84%11.84%-11.63%4.86%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		18.19%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between DBC and IWM is -0.15, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.15

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.07

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.19

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.26

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 6, 2006

0.30

The correlation between DBC and IWM shifts across timeframes, from -0.15 (1 year) to 0.30 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

DBC vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
DBC
IWM

Financial Services

91.5%
15.6%

Basic Materials

-

4.5%

Communication Services

-

2.1%

Consumer Cyclical

-

7.9%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.1%

Energy

-

5.8%

Healthcare

-

16.1%

Industrials

-

17.2%

Real Estate

-

5.6%

Technology

-

19.5%

Utilities

-

3.0%

Financial Services

DBC
91.5%
IWM
15.6%

Basic Materials

DBC

-

IWM
4.5%

Communication Services

DBC

-

IWM
2.1%

Consumer Cyclical

DBC

-

IWM
7.9%

Consumer Defensive

DBC

-

IWM
2.1%

Energy

DBC

-

IWM
5.8%

Healthcare

DBC

-

IWM
16.1%

Industrials

DBC

-

IWM
17.2%

Real Estate

DBC

-

IWM
5.6%

Technology

DBC

-

IWM
19.5%

Utilities

DBC

-

IWM
3.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with DBC:
DBC vs. PDBCDBC vs. GSGDBC vs. DBADBC vs. BCIDBC vs. DJPDBC vs. XLEDBC vs. USCI
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. IWO

Return for Risk

DBC vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
DBC
DBC Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
DBC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DBC Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
DBC Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
DBC Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
DBC Martin Ratio Rank: 6868
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7272
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

DBC vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund (DBC) 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.

DBCIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.90
1.91

-0.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.51
2.65

-0.13

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.31

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.01

3.41

+0.60

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.20

12.04

-1.84

DBC vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DBC Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DBC 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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

DBC vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DBC drawdown since its inception was -76.36%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBC and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

DBCIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-76.36%

-59.05%

-17.31%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.96%

-11.03%

+2.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.82%

-27.50%

+13.68%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-27.34%

-31.91%

+4.57%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.71%

-41.13%

-0.58%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-25.36%

-0.55%

-24.81%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-46.20%

-10.76%

-35.44%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.51%

3.12%

+0.39%

Volatility

DBC vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund (DBC) is 5.20%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 7.12%. This indicates that DBC 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 charts...

Volatility by Period

DBCIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.20%

7.12%

-1.92%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.07%

14.32%

+1.75%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.97%

19.72%

-0.75%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.22%

22.61%

-3.39%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.82%

23.08%

-5.26%

DBC vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

DBC has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

DBC vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

DBC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.58%, more than IWM's 0.87% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
DBC
Invesco DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund		2.58%3.33%5.22%4.94%0.59%0.00%0.00%1.59%1.30%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		0.87%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

DBC and IWM have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWM has higher volatility (7.12%) compared to DBC (5.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DBC dropped -76.36% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 11.14% vs 8.31% for DBC. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, DBC has been the lower-risk option at 5.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWM has performed better with a 11.14% return vs 8.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBC.

DBC has the higher dividend yield at 2.58%, compared with 0.87% for IWM.

DBC is categorized as Commodities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. DBC tracks DBIQ Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Index Excess Return, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DBC and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 1.90), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for DBC 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