DBL vs. IWN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DBL (DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund) and IWN (iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF) are both funds - DBL is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by DoubleLine, while IWN is a Small Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Value Index. DBL is actively managed, while IWN is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, DBL returned 2.53%/yr vs 10.16%/yr for IWN. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DBL charges 2.43%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for IWN.

Performance

DBL vs. IWN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund (DBL) and iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF (IWN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DBL achieves a -2.09% return, which is significantly lower than IWN's 17.42% return. Over the past 10 years, DBL has underperformed IWN with an annualized return of 2.53%, while IWN has yielded a comparatively higher 10.16% annualized return.

DBL

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 0.11%
• YTD: -2.09%
• 6M: -2.41%
• 1Y: 0.23%
• 3Y*: 7.38%
• 5Y*: 2.11%
• 10Y*: 2.53%

IWN

• 1D: -1.31%
• 1M: 2.73%
• YTD: 17.42%
• 6M: 16.54%
• 1Y: 41.15%
• 3Y*: 17.66%
• 5Y*: 6.48%
• 10Y*: 10.16%

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

DBL vs. IWN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
DBL DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund	-2.09%	7.16%	10.05%	13.11%	-15.83%	4.61%	3.93%	16.74%	-6.24%	4.49%
IWN iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF	17.42%	12.40%	7.63%	14.56%	-14.77%	27.96%	4.66%	22.01%	-13.01%	7.69%

Correlation

The correlation between DBL and IWN is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.27
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.25
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 30, 2012	0.18

Return for Risk

DBL vs. IWN — Risk / Return Rank

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

DBL

DBL Risk / Return Rank: 3
DBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
DBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
DBL Omega Ratio Rank: 3
DBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
DBL Martin Ratio Rank: 3

IWN

IWN Risk / Return Rank: 74
IWN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
IWN Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
IWN Omega Ratio Rank: 64
IWN Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
IWN Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

DBL vs. IWN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund (DBL) and iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF (IWN). 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.

	DBL	IWN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.03	2.33	-2.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.10	3.28	-3.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.40	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.04	4.89	-4.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.11	16.44	-16.33
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DBL vs. IWN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DBL Sharpe Ratio is 0.03, which is lower than the IWN Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DBL and IWN, 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

	DBL	IWN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.03	2.33	-2.30
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.18	0.30	-0.12
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.17	0.44	-0.26
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.32	0.39	-0.07

Drawdowns

DBL vs. IWN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DBL drawdown since its inception was -26.45%, smaller than the maximum IWN drawdown of -61.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBL and IWN.

Drawdown Indicators

	DBL	IWN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.45%	-61.55%	+35.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.72%	-8.45%	+2.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.72%	-26.70%	+20.98%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.54%	-26.70%	+2.16%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-26.45%	-46.08%	+19.63%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.02%	-1.47%	-1.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.86%	-10.16%	+3.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.18%	2.51%	-0.33%

Volatility

DBL vs. IWN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund (DBL) is 1.82%, while iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF (IWN) has a volatility of 4.91%. This indicates that DBL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DBL	IWN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.82%	4.91%	-3.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.45%	11.86%	-6.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.10%	17.81%	-10.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.56%	21.43%	-9.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.53%	23.39%	-8.86%

DBL vs. IWN - Expense Ratio Comparison

DBL has a 2.43% expense ratio, which is higher than IWN's 0.24% expense ratio.

Dividends

DBL vs. IWN - Dividend Comparison

DBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.18%, more than IWN's 1.46% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DBL DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit Fund	9.18%	8.66%	8.52%	8.60%	8.89%	7.17%	8.69%	6.83%	10.27%	9.03%	8.68%	9.35%
IWN iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF	1.46%	1.70%	1.80%	2.04%	2.12%	1.48%	1.60%	1.92%	1.99%	1.78%	1.74%	2.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DBL and IWN in my portfolio?

DBL and IWN have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, DBL or IWN?

IWN has higher volatility (4.91%) compared to DBL (1.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DBL dropped -26.45% vs IWN's -61.55%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 0.03), 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.