FALN vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FALN (iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FALN is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% 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, FALN returned 3.78%/yr vs 6.11%/yr for IWM. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FALN charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

FALN vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FALN achieves a 1.56% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return.

FALN

• 1D: -0.22%
• 1M: 0.68%
• YTD: 1.56%
• 6M: 1.36%
• 1Y: 8.66%
• 3Y*: 9.18%
• 5Y*: 3.78%
• 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%

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

FALN vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF	1.56%	8.92%	7.68%	13.47%	-13.79%	5.40%	14.85%	17.42%	-4.97%	8.70%
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 FALN and IWM is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 20, 2016	0.60

The correlation between FALN and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

FALN vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FALN	IWM
Real Estate	100.0%	5.7%
Basic Materials	-	4.5%
Communication Services	-	2.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	7.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.1%
Energy	-	6.0%
Financial Services	-	15.8%
Healthcare	-	15.8%
Industrials	-	17.1%
Technology	-	19.5%
Utilities	-	3.0%

Return for Risk

FALN vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FALN

FALN Risk / Return Rank: 54
FALN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
FALN Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
FALN Omega Ratio Rank: 60
FALN Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
FALN Martin Ratio Rank: 53

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 62
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 53
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

FALN vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) 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.

	FALN	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.91	2.05	-0.14
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.78	2.85	-0.07
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.34	+0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.20	3.56	-1.37
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.17	12.64	-3.47
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FALN vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FALN Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FALN 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FALN	IWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.91	2.05	-0.14
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.52	0.27	+0.25
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.48	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.74	0.37	+0.37

Drawdowns

FALN vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FALN drawdown since its inception was -29.22%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FALN and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FALN	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.22%	-59.05%	+29.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.96%	-11.03%	+7.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.92%	-27.50%	+21.58%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.78%	-31.91%	+13.13%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.26%	-1.49%	+1.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.32%	-10.77%	+7.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.95%	3.10%	-2.15%

Volatility

FALN vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) is 1.38%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that FALN 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.

Volatility by Period

	FALN	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.38%	5.75%	-4.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.64%	13.53%	-9.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.54%	19.20%	-14.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.31%	22.52%	-15.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.95%	23.04%	-14.09%

FALN vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FALN has a 0.25% 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

FALN vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

FALN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.46%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF	6.46%	6.31%	6.24%	5.37%	5.08%	3.40%	5.14%	5.35%	5.97%	6.98%	3.55%	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

Can I hold both FALN and IWM in my portfolio?

FALN and IWM have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FALN or IWM?

IWM has higher volatility (5.75%) compared to FALN (1.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FALN dropped -29.22% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, FALN or IWM?

On 5-year performance, IWM leads with 6.11% vs 3.78% for FALN. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FALN has been the lower-risk option at 1.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FALN or IWM?

Over the 5-year period, IWM has performed better with a 6.11% return vs 3.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FALN or IWM?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for FALN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FALN or IWM?

FALN has the higher dividend yield at 6.46%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.

What is the main difference between FALN and IWM?

FALN is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. FALN tracks Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for FALN and 0.19% for IWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.91), 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.