PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

DYNF vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

DYNF (iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DYNF is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by iShares, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. DYNF is actively managed, while IWM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DYNF returned 14.71%/yr vs 6.27%/yr for IWM. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. DYNF charges 0.26%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

DYNF vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF (DYNF) 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, DYNF achieves a 10.04% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 20.47% return.

DYNF

1D
-1.62%
1M
0.13%
YTD
10.04%
6M
8.91%
1Y
27.42%
3Y*
25.19%
5Y*
14.71%
10Y*
—

IWM

1D
-0.96%
1M
3.82%
YTD
20.47%
6M
17.64%
1Y
40.90%
3Y*
19.22%
5Y*
6.27%
10Y*
11.58%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

DYNF vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
DYNF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF		10.04%20.00%30.29%36.25%-20.27%22.12%13.47%14.75%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		20.47%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%9.26%

Correlation

The correlation between DYNF and IWM is 0.74, 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

0.74

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

0.73

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

0.80

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2019

0.81

The correlation between DYNF and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

DYNF vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
DYNF
IWM

Technology

40.5%
20.1%

Financial Services

14.9%
15.5%

Communication Services

10.3%
1.7%

Industrials

9.5%
17.3%

Consumer Cyclical

7.0%
8.0%

Healthcare

5.8%
15.6%

Energy

4.5%
6.0%

Utilities

2.8%
3.1%

Real Estate

1.9%
5.5%

Consumer Defensive

1.7%
2.0%

Basic Materials

0.8%
4.5%

Technology

DYNF
40.5%
IWM
20.1%

Financial Services

DYNF
14.9%
IWM
15.5%

Communication Services

DYNF
10.3%
IWM
1.7%

Industrials

DYNF
9.5%
IWM
17.3%

Consumer Cyclical

DYNF
7.0%
IWM
8.0%

Healthcare

DYNF
5.8%
IWM
15.6%

Energy

DYNF
4.5%
IWM
6.0%

Utilities

DYNF
2.8%
IWM
3.1%

Real Estate

DYNF
1.9%
IWM
5.5%

Consumer Defensive

DYNF
1.7%
IWM
2.0%

Basic Materials

DYNF
0.8%
IWM
4.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with DYNF:
DYNF vs. VOODYNF vs. THRODYNF vs. VUGDYNF vs. USMFDYNF vs. SCHGDYNF vs. VTIDYNF vs. BRNY
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA

Return for Risk

DYNF vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
DYNF
DYNF Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
DYNF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DYNF Sortino Ratio Rank: 6363
Sortino Ratio Rank
DYNF Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
DYNF Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
DYNF Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 5757
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
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.

DYNF vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF (DYNF) 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.

DYNFIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.09
2.08

0.00

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.82
2.86

-0.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.34

+0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.18

3.73

-0.55

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.86

13.18

+1.68

DYNF vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DYNF Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DYNF 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

DYNF vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DYNF drawdown since its inception was -34.72%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DYNF and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

DYNFIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.72%

-59.05%

+24.33%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.67%

-11.03%

+2.36%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.70%

-27.50%

+8.80%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.65%

-31.91%

+3.26%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-41.13%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.97%

-0.96%

-1.01%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.94%

-10.75%

+4.81%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.85%

3.11%

-1.26%

Volatility

DYNF vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF (DYNF) is 5.38%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 6.56%. This indicates that DYNF 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

DYNFIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.38%

6.56%

-1.18%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.64%

14.31%

-3.67%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.24%

19.74%

-6.50%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.62%

22.61%

-4.99%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.91%

23.06%

-3.15%

DYNF vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

DYNF 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

DYNF vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

DYNF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.81%, less than IWM's 0.90% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
DYNF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF		0.81%1.01%0.65%1.11%1.66%2.89%1.52%1.22%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		0.90%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

DYNF and IWM have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWM has higher volatility (6.56%) compared to DYNF (5.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DYNF dropped -34.72% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 5-year performance, DYNF leads with 14.71% vs 6.27% for IWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, DYNF has been the lower-risk option at 5.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, DYNF has performed better with a 14.71% return vs 6.27%. 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 0.26% for DYNF.

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.90%, compared with 0.81% for DYNF.

DYNF is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.26% for DYNF and 0.19% for IWM.

DYNF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 2.08), 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 DYNF 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