ECML vs. IJS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

ECML (Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF) and IJS (iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Value ETF) are both Small Cap Value Equities funds. ECML is actively managed, while IJS is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ECML returned 12.03%/yr vs 12.47%/yr for IJS. Their correlation of 0.86 means they have usually moved in the same direction. ECML charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for IJS.

Performance

ECML vs. IJS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) and iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Value ETF (IJS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with ECML having a 19.84% return and IJS slightly higher at 20.25%.

ECML

• 1D: -0.08%
• 1M: 2.28%
• 6M: 13.37%
• YTD: 19.84%
• 1Y: 32.00%
• 3Y*: 12.03%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.95%

IJS

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: 0.38%
• 6M: 12.92%
• YTD: 20.25%
• 1Y: 39.43%
• 3Y*: 12.47%
• 5Y*: 7.91%
• 10Y*: 10.17%
• ALL TIME*: 9.94%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ECML Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	$548.16K	$300.59K	$261.72K
IJS iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Value ETF	$28.19M	$29.28M	$50.29M

ECML vs. IJS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ECML Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	19.84%	6.82%	2.37%	26.00%
IJS iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Value ETF	20.25%	6.54%	7.33%	15.94%

Correlation

The correlation between ECML and IJS is 0.83, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 18, 2023	0.86

The correlation between ECML and IJS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

ECML vs. IJS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ECML	IJS
Consumer Cyclical	24.6%	15.0%
Healthcare	14.4%	6.3%
Energy	13.2%	7.6%
Industrials	13.0%	12.9%
Consumer Defensive	12.3%	5.5%
Basic Materials	11.6%	5.9%
Technology	7.6%	11.5%
Communication Services	3.3%	3.5%
Utilities	1.4%	2.1%
Financial Services	-	21.6%
Real Estate	-	8.3%

Return for Risk

ECML vs. IJS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ECML

ECML Risk / Return Rank: 90
ECML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
ECML Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
ECML Omega Ratio Rank: 86
ECML Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
ECML Martin Ratio Rank: 88

IJS

IJS Risk / Return Rank: 88
IJS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
IJS Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
IJS Omega Ratio Rank: 85
IJS Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
IJS Martin Ratio Rank: 89

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ECML vs. IJS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) and iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Value ETF (IJS). 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.

	ECML	IJS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	2.09	+0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.40	3.02	+0.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.37	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.46	3.99	+0.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.07	13.67	-0.60

ECML vs. IJS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECML Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is comparable to the IJS Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECML and IJS, 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

ECML vs. IJS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECML drawdown since its inception was -24.66%, smaller than the maximum IJS drawdown of -60.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECML and IJS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ECML	IJS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.66%	-60.11%	+35.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.01%	-9.28%	+2.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.66%	-28.65%	+3.99%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.65%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-47.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.11%	-1.56%	+0.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.62%	-9.84%	+4.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.39%	2.70%	-0.31%

Volatility

ECML vs. IJS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) is 3.32%, while iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Value ETF (IJS) has a volatility of 3.53%. This indicates that ECML experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IJS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ECML	IJS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.32%	3.53%	-0.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.21%	11.13%	-1.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.05%	17.74%	-3.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.12%	21.71%	-3.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.12%	23.54%	-5.42%

ECML vs. IJS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ECML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than IJS's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

ECML vs. IJS - Dividend Comparison

ECML's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.15%, less than IJS's 1.32% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ECML Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	1.15%	1.38%	0.98%	0.77%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IJS iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Value ETF	1.32%	1.62%	1.78%	1.42%	1.46%	1.52%	1.00%	1.66%	1.75%	1.41%	1.22%	1.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ECML and IJS in my portfolio?

ECML and IJS have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ECML or IJS?

IJS has higher volatility (3.53%) compared to ECML (3.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECML dropped -24.66% vs IJS's -60.11%.

Which ETF is better, ECML or IJS?

On 3-year performance, IJS leads with 12.47% vs 12.03% for ECML. On fees, IJS is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, ECML has been the lower-risk option at 3.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ECML or IJS?

Over the 3-year period, IJS has performed better with a 12.47% return vs 12.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ECML or IJS?

IJS is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for ECML.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ECML or IJS?

IJS has the higher dividend yield at 1.32%, compared with 1.15% for ECML.

What is the main difference between ECML and IJS?

They also come from different issuers: Euclidean and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for ECML and 0.25% for IJS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ECML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 2.09), 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.