FANG vs. IWM
FANG (Diamondback Energy, Inc.) is a stock, while IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) is Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Over the past 10 years, FANG returned 11.24%/yr vs 10.78%/yr for IWM. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
FANG vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FANG achieves a 33.36% return, which is significantly higher than IWM's 15.62% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with FANG having a 11.24% annualized return and IWM not far behind at 10.78%.
FANG
- 1D
- 2.89%
- 1M
- 5.61%
- YTD
- 33.36%
- 6M
- 27.27%
- 1Y
- 44.64%
- 3Y*
- 18.70%
- 5Y*
- 22.65%
- 10Y*
- 11.24%
IWM
- 1D
- 0.87%
- 1M
- -0.02%
- YTD
- 15.62%
- 6M
- 13.83%
- 1Y
- 35.52%
- 3Y*
- 16.64%
- 5Y*
- 5.48%
- 10Y*
- 10.78%
FANG vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FANG Diamondback Energy, Inc. | 33.36% | -5.64% | 10.35% | 19.66% | 35.34% | 127.51% | -46.00% | 0.92% | -26.35% | 24.93% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 15.62% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | 14.54% | 20.03% | 25.39% | -11.12% | 14.58% |
Correlation
The correlation between FANG and IWM is -0.00, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.00 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.37 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.44 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 15, 2012 | 0.43 |
The correlation between FANG and IWM shifts across timeframes, from -0.00 (1 year) to 0.44 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
FANG vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
FANG
IWM
FANG vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG) 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.
| FANG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.40 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.57 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.30 | -0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.58 | 3.24 | +0.34 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.07 | 11.44 | -4.36 |
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
| FANG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.43 | 1.83 | -0.40 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.60 | 0.24 | +0.36 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.23 | 0.47 | -0.24 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.47 | 0.36 | +0.10 |
Drawdowns
FANG vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FANG drawdown since its inception was -88.72%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FANG and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FANG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -88.72% | -59.05% | -29.67% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.53% | -11.03% | -1.50% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -42.10% | -27.50% | -14.60% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -42.10% | -31.91% | -10.19% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -88.72% | -41.13% | -47.59% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.74% | -2.71% | -4.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.39% | -10.76% | -8.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.33% | 3.11% | +3.22% |
Volatility
FANG vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG) has a higher volatility of 11.35% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 6.52%. This indicates that FANG'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
| FANG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.35% | 6.52% | +4.83% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.88% | 14.00% | +9.88% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.51% | 19.53% | +11.98% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 37.98% | 22.58% | +15.40% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 49.06% | 23.07% | +25.99% |
Dividends
FANG vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
FANG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.09%, more than IWM's 0.89% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FANG Diamondback Energy, Inc. | 2.09% | 2.66% | 5.06% | 5.15% | 6.55% | 1.62% | 3.10% | 0.74% | 0.40% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 0.89% | 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
FANG and IWM have a correlation of -0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FANG has higher volatility (11.35%) compared to IWM (6.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FANG dropped -88.72% vs IWM's -59.05%.
IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs 1.43), 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 FANG 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