PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

EMXF vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EMXF (iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMXF is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Choice ESG Screened 5% Issuer Capped Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMXF returned 7.11%/yr vs 6.27%/yr for IWM. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMXF charges 0.16%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

EMXF vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF (EMXF) 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, EMXF achieves a 24.26% return, which is significantly higher than IWM's 20.47% return.

EMXF

1D
-4.12%
1M
5.10%
YTD
24.26%
6M
24.79%
1Y
43.07%
3Y*
21.44%
5Y*
7.11%
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)

EMXF vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
EMXF
iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF		24.26%29.40%8.03%6.63%-18.99%4.45%15.65%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		20.47%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.08%

Correlation

The correlation between EMXF and IWM is 0.67, 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

0.67

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

0.61

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

0.57

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 13, 2020

0.56

The correlation between EMXF and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.56 (all time) to 0.67 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EMXF vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EMXF
IWM

Financial Services

34.3%
15.5%

Technology

33.4%
20.1%

Communication Services

8.5%
1.7%

Industrials

5.6%
17.3%

Consumer Cyclical

5.2%
8.0%

Healthcare

3.6%
15.6%

Basic Materials

2.8%
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

2.6%
2.0%

Real Estate

1.4%
5.5%

Utilities

0.6%
3.1%

Energy

0.0%
6.0%

Financial Services

EMXF
34.3%
IWM
15.5%

Technology

EMXF
33.4%
IWM
20.1%

Communication Services

EMXF
8.5%
IWM
1.7%

Industrials

EMXF
5.6%
IWM
17.3%

Consumer Cyclical

EMXF
5.2%
IWM
8.0%

Healthcare

EMXF
3.6%
IWM
15.6%

Basic Materials

EMXF
2.8%
IWM
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

EMXF
2.6%
IWM
2.0%

Real Estate

EMXF
1.4%
IWM
5.5%

Utilities

EMXF
0.6%
IWM
3.1%

Energy

EMXF
0.0%
IWM
6.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with EMXF:
EMXF vs. LDEMEMXF vs. EEMEMXF vs. VXUSEMXF vs. ESGEEMXF vs. SPEMEMXF vs. AVEMEMXF vs. VSGX
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA

Return for Risk

EMXF vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EMXF
EMXF Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
EMXF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMXF Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMXF Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
EMXF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMXF Martin Ratio Rank: 7474
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.

EMXF vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF (EMXF) 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.

EMXFIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.13
2.08

+0.04

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.82
2.86

-0.04

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.40

1.34

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.45

3.73

-0.27

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.92

13.18

-0.26

EMXF vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMXF Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMXF 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

EMXF vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMXF drawdown since its inception was -33.13%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMXF and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EMXFIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.13%

-59.05%

+25.92%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.53%

-11.03%

-1.50%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.93%

-27.50%

+11.57%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.89%

-31.91%

-0.98%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-41.13%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.12%

-0.96%

-3.16%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.93%

-10.75%

-1.18%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.34%

3.11%

+0.23%

Volatility

EMXF vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF (EMXF) has a higher volatility of 10.32% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 6.56%. This indicates that EMXF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EMXFIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.32%

6.56%

+3.76%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

18.35%

14.31%

+4.04%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.37%

19.74%

+0.63%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.50%

22.61%

-0.11%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.99%

23.06%

-1.07%

EMXF vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMXF has a 0.16% expense ratio, which is lower than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

EMXF vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

EMXF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.67%, more than IWM's 0.90% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMXF
iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF		2.67%3.43%2.92%2.25%2.42%1.87%0.41%0.00%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

EMXF and IWM have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EMXF has higher volatility (10.32%) compared to IWM (6.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMXF dropped -33.13% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 5-year performance, EMXF leads with 7.11% vs 6.27% for IWM. On fees, EMXF is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 6.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, EMXF has performed better with a 7.11% return vs 6.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EMXF is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

EMXF has the higher dividend yield at 2.67%, compared with 0.90% for IWM.

EMXF is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. EMXF tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Choice ESG Screened 5% Issuer Capped Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.16% for EMXF and 0.19% for IWM.

EMXF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 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 EMXF 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