EFRA vs. IWM
EFRA (iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EFRA is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the FTSE Green Revenues Select Infrastructure and Industrials Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EFRA returned 11.21%/yr vs 17.88%/yr for IWM. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EFRA charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
EFRA vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EFRA achieves a 4.96% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return.
EFRA
- 1D
- 0.40%
- 1M
- -0.88%
- YTD
- 4.96%
- 6M
- 4.97%
- 1Y
- 10.28%
- 3Y*
- 11.21%
- 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%
EFRA vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EFRA iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF | 4.96% | 13.76% | 8.09% | 14.49% | 7.48% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 17.07% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -0.64% |
Correlation
The correlation between EFRA 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 | 0.79 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2022 | 0.81 |
The correlation between EFRA and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.
EFRA vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
EFRA
IWM
Industrials
Utilities
Consumer Cyclical
Basic Materials
Technology
Communication Services
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
Real Estate
-
Industrials
EFRA
IWM
Utilities
EFRA
IWM
Consumer Cyclical
EFRA
IWM
Basic Materials
EFRA
IWM
Technology
EFRA
IWM
Communication Services
EFRA
-
IWM
Consumer Defensive
EFRA
-
IWM
Energy
EFRA
-
IWM
Financial Services
EFRA
-
IWM
Healthcare
EFRA
-
IWM
Real Estate
EFRA
-
IWM
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
EFRA vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
EFRA
IWM
EFRA vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA) 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.
| EFRA | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.32 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.71 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.13 | 1.34 | -0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.92 | 3.56 | -2.64 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.67 | 12.64 | -9.97 |
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
| EFRA | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.74 | 2.05 | -1.32 |
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 | 0.90 | 0.37 | +0.53 |
Drawdowns
EFRA vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EFRA drawdown since its inception was -16.25%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFRA and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EFRA | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.25% | -59.05% | +42.80% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.20% | -11.03% | -0.17% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.25% | -27.50% | +11.25% |
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 | -6.98% | -1.49% | -5.49% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.63% | -10.77% | +7.14% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.85% | 3.10% | +0.75% |
Volatility
EFRA vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA) is 4.37%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that EFRA 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
| EFRA | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.37% | 5.75% | -1.38% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.21% | 13.53% | -2.32% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.02% | 19.20% | -5.18% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.51% | 22.52% | -7.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.51% | 23.04% | -7.53% |
EFRA vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
EFRA has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
EFRA vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
EFRA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.13%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EFRA iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF | 4.13% | 4.34% | 3.79% | 1.85% | 0.14% | 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
EFRA 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 (5.75%) compared to EFRA (4.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFRA dropped -16.25% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 3-year performance, IWM leads with 17.88% vs 11.21% for EFRA. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, EFRA has been the lower-risk option at 4.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, IWM has performed better with a 17.88% return vs 11.21%. 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 0.47% for EFRA.
EFRA has the higher dividend yield at 4.13%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.
EFRA is categorized as Industrials Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. EFRA tracks FTSE Green Revenues Select Infrastructure and Industrials Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for EFRA and 0.19% for IWM.
IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 0.74), 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 EFRA 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