DFAS vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

DFAS (Dimensional U.S. Small Cap ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. DFAS is actively managed, while IWM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DFAS returned 8.37%/yr vs 6.77%/yr for IWM. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. DFAS charges 0.26%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

DFAS vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional U.S. Small Cap ETF (DFAS) 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, DFAS achieves a 15.74% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 21.64% return.

DFAS

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 3.77%
• YTD: 15.74%
• 6M: 12.99%
• 1Y: 31.21%
• 3Y*: 16.27%
• 5Y*: 8.37%
• 10Y*: —

IWM

• 1D: 0.88%
• 1M: 4.83%
• YTD: 21.64%
• 6M: 18.08%
• 1Y: 44.01%
• 3Y*: 19.60%
• 5Y*: 6.77%
• 10Y*: 11.68%

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

DFAS vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DFAS Dimensional U.S. Small Cap ETF	15.74%	8.17%	10.21%	17.83%	-13.84%	4.52%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	21.64%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	-20.48%	-3.41%

Correlation

The correlation between DFAS and IWM is 0.94, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.94
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2021	0.97

The correlation between DFAS and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

DFAS vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DFAS	IWM
Financial Services	19.2%	15.5%
Industrials	18.9%	17.3%
Technology	15.1%	20.1%
Consumer Cyclical	13.0%	8.0%
Healthcare	12.0%	15.6%
Energy	6.4%	6.0%
Basic Materials	5.2%	4.5%
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	2.0%
Utilities	2.8%	3.1%
Communication Services	2.6%	1.7%
Real Estate	0.7%	5.5%

Return for Risk

DFAS vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFAS

DFAS Risk / Return Rank: 60
DFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
DFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
DFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 52
DFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
DFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 65

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 72
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 63
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

DFAS vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional U.S. Small Cap ETF (DFAS) 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.

	DFAS	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.85	2.24	-0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.70	3.05	-0.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.36	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.35	4.01	-0.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.51	14.19	-2.68

DFAS vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFAS Sharpe Ratio is 1.85, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFAS 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.

Drawdowns

DFAS vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFAS drawdown since its inception was -26.13%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFAS and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	DFAS	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.13%	-59.05%	+32.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.36%	-11.03%	+1.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.13%	-27.50%	+1.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.13%	-31.91%	+5.78%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.12%	0.00%	-0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.24%	-10.75%	+2.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.72%	3.11%	-0.39%

Volatility

DFAS vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Dimensional U.S. Small Cap ETF (DFAS) is 4.70%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 6.47%. This indicates that DFAS 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.

Volatility by Period

	DFAS	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.70%	6.47%	-1.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.92%	14.28%	-2.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.00%	19.75%	-2.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.81%	22.60%	-1.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.82%	23.09%	-2.27%

DFAS vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

DFAS has a 0.26% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

DFAS vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

DFAS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%, more than IWM's 0.89% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DFAS Dimensional U.S. Small Cap ETF	0.90%	0.99%	0.93%	1.00%	1.03%	2.87%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	0.89%	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 DFAS and IWM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, DFAS and IWM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, DFAS or IWM?

IWM has higher volatility (6.47%) compared to DFAS (4.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFAS dropped -26.13% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, DFAS or IWM?

On 5-year performance, DFAS leads with 8.37% vs 6.77% for IWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, DFAS has been the lower-risk option at 4.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DFAS or IWM?

Over the 5-year period, DFAS has performed better with a 8.37% return vs 6.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DFAS or IWM?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.26% for DFAS.

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

DFAS and IWM have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.90%.

What is the main difference between DFAS and IWM?

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.26% for DFAS and 0.19% for IWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 1.85), 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.