PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EWA vs. IWM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EWA vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI-Australia ETF (EWA) 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, EWA achieves a 11.26% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return. Over the past 10 years, EWA has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 8.41%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 10.93% annualized return.


EWA

1D
-1.12%
1M
0.90%
YTD
11.26%
6M
13.42%
1Y
15.43%
3Y*
12.60%
5Y*
5.51%
10Y*
8.41%

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

EWA vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EWA
iShares MSCI-Australia ETF
11.26%13.35%1.60%13.81%-5.92%8.93%8.29%22.45%-12.04%19.88%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
17.07%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between EWA and IWM is 0.66, 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

0.66

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

0.68

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

0.70

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 30, 2000

0.60

The correlation between EWA and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.60 (all time) to 0.70 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EWA vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EWA
IWM

Financial Services

43.6%
15.8%

Basic Materials

23.0%
4.5%

Consumer Cyclical

6.1%
7.8%

Real Estate

5.0%
5.7%

Healthcare

4.9%
15.8%

Energy

4.5%
6.0%

Industrials

4.5%
17.1%

Consumer Defensive

3.6%
2.1%

Communication Services

2.0%
2.0%

Utilities

1.7%
3.0%

Technology

1.1%
19.5%

Financial Services

EWA
43.6%
IWM
15.8%

Basic Materials

EWA
23.0%
IWM
4.5%

Consumer Cyclical

EWA
6.1%
IWM
7.8%

Real Estate

EWA
5.0%
IWM
5.7%

Healthcare

EWA
4.9%
IWM
15.8%

Energy

EWA
4.5%
IWM
6.0%

Industrials

EWA
4.5%
IWM
17.1%

Consumer Defensive

EWA
3.6%
IWM
2.1%

Communication Services

EWA
2.0%
IWM
2.0%

Utilities

EWA
1.7%
IWM
3.0%

Technology

EWA
1.1%
IWM
19.5%

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

EWA vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

EWA
EWA Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
EWA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EWA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
EWA Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
EWA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3131
Calmar Ratio Rank
EWA Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
Martin Ratio Rank

IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
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.

EWA vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI-Australia ETF (EWA) 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.


EWAIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.13

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.50

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.34

-0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.55

3.56

-2.02

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.43

12.64

-8.21

EWA vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EWA Sharpe Ratio is 0.92, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EWA 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EWAIWMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.92

2.05

-1.13

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.28

0.27

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.37

0.48

-0.10

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.29

0.37

-0.07

Drawdowns

EWA vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EWA drawdown since its inception was -66.98%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWA and IWM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EWAIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-66.98%

-59.05%

-7.93%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.01%

-11.03%

+1.02%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.91%

-27.50%

+5.59%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.87%

-31.91%

+7.04%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.54%

-41.13%

-4.41%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.70%

-1.49%

-2.21%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.33%

-10.77%

-0.56%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.49%

3.10%

+0.39%

Volatility

EWA vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI-Australia ETF (EWA) is 5.46%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that EWA 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


EWAIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.46%

5.75%

-0.29%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.98%

13.53%

+0.45%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.87%

19.20%

-2.33%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.73%

22.52%

-2.79%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.61%

23.04%

-0.43%

EWA vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EWA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.


Dividends

EWA vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

EWA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.89%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EWA
iShares MSCI-Australia ETF
2.89%3.21%3.71%3.72%5.28%5.08%2.02%3.97%6.11%4.44%4.03%5.48%
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


EWA and IWM have a correlation of 0.66, 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 EWA (5.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWA dropped -66.98% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 10.93% vs 8.41% for EWA. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, EWA has been the lower-risk option at 5.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWM has performed better with a 10.93% return vs 8.41%. 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 EWA.

EWA has the higher dividend yield at 2.89%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.

EWA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. EWA tracks MSCI Australia Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EWA and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 0.92), 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 EWA 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