DMAX vs. IWM
DMAX (iShares Large Cap Max Buffer December ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DMAX is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the S&P 500 Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, DMAX returned 8.46% vs 39.10% for IWM. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. DMAX charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
DMAX vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, DMAX achieves a 2.34% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return.
DMAX
- 1D
- -0.07%
- 1M
- 0.86%
- YTD
- 2.34%
- 6M
- 3.01%
- 1Y
- 8.46%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 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%
DMAX vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
DMAX iShares Large Cap Max Buffer December ETF | 2.34% | 7.81% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 17.07% | 12.57% |
Correlation
The correlation between DMAX and IWM is 0.65, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.65 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 3, 2025 | 0.70 |
The correlation between DMAX and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
DMAX vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
DMAX
IWM
DMAX vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Large Cap Max Buffer December ETF (DMAX) 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.
| DMAX | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.59 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.79 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.79 | 1.34 | +0.45 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.01 | 3.56 | +2.45 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 30.74 | 12.64 | +18.09 |
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 charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| DMAX | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.65 | 2.05 | +1.59 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.27 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.48 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 2.14 | 0.37 | +1.77 |
Drawdowns
DMAX vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum DMAX drawdown since its inception was -3.37%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DMAX and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| DMAX | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.37% | -59.05% | +55.68% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.41% | -11.03% | +9.62% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -27.50% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -31.91% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -41.13% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.07% | -1.49% | +1.42% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.38% | -10.77% | +10.39% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.28% | 3.10% | -2.82% |
Volatility
DMAX vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Large Cap Max Buffer December ETF (DMAX) is 0.32%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that DMAX 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
| DMAX | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.32% | 5.75% | -5.43% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.54% | 13.53% | -11.99% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.33% | 19.20% | -16.87% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.40% | 22.52% | -19.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.40% | 23.04% | -19.64% |
DMAX vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
DMAX has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
DMAX vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
DMAX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.15%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DMAX iShares Large Cap Max Buffer December ETF | 1.15% | 1.18% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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
DMAX and IWM have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWM has higher volatility (5.75%) compared to DMAX (0.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DMAX dropped -3.37% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 1-year performance, IWM leads with 39.10% vs 8.46% for DMAX. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, DMAX has been the lower-risk option at 0.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, IWM has performed better with a 39.10% return vs 8.46%. 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 0.50% for DMAX.
DMAX has the higher dividend yield at 1.15%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.
DMAX is categorized as Defined Outcome, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. DMAX tracks S&P 500 Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for DMAX and 0.19% for IWM.
DMAX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.65 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.
Find the right allocation for DMAX 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