FWRA.L vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

FWRA.L (Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FWRA.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the FTSE All-World Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FWRA.L returned 25.89% vs 35.52% for IWM. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FWRA.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

FWRA.L vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L) 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, FWRA.L achieves a 9.27% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 15.62% return.

FWRA.L

• 1D: -0.43%
• 1M: 0.22%
• YTD: 9.27%
• 6M: 10.72%
• 1Y: 25.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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%

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

FWRA.L vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FWRA.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation	9.27%	22.42%	18.04%	10.02%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	15.62%	12.66%	11.38%	11.97%

Correlation

The correlation between FWRA.L and IWM is 0.54, 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	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2023	0.51

The correlation between FWRA.L and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.

FWRA.L vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FWRA.L	IWM
Technology	29.1%	19.5%
Financial Services	16.4%	15.6%
Industrials	11.0%	17.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	7.9%
Communication Services	8.9%	2.1%
Healthcare	7.6%	16.1%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	2.1%
Energy	4.3%	5.8%
Basic Materials	3.9%	4.5%
Utilities	2.6%	3.0%
Real Estate	1.9%	5.6%

Return for Risk

FWRA.L vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FWRA.L

FWRA.L Risk / Return Rank: 71
FWRA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
FWRA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
FWRA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 72
FWRA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
FWRA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 72

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 63
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 54
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

FWRA.L vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L) 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.

	FWRA.L	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.07	1.83	+0.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.08	2.54	+0.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.30	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.95	3.24	-0.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.33	11.44	+0.89
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FWRA.L vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FWRA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.07, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FWRA.L 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

	FWRA.L	IWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.07	1.83	+0.24
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.24	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.47	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.51	0.36	+1.15

Drawdowns

FWRA.L vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FWRA.L drawdown since its inception was -16.50%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FWRA.L and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FWRA.L	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.50%	-59.05%	+42.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.78%	-11.03%	+2.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-27.50%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-31.91%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.75%	-2.71%	-0.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.92%	-10.76%	+8.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.10%	3.11%	-1.01%

Volatility

FWRA.L vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L) is 3.90%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 6.52%. This indicates that FWRA.L 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

	FWRA.L	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.90%	6.52%	-2.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.98%	14.00%	-4.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.55%	19.53%	-6.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.63%	22.58%	-8.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.63%	23.07%	-9.44%

FWRA.L vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FWRA.L has a 0.15% 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

FWRA.L vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

FWRA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FWRA.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both FWRA.L and IWM in my portfolio?

FWRA.L and IWM have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FWRA.L or IWM?

On fees, FWRA.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FWRA.L or IWM?

FWRA.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

What is the main difference between FWRA.L and IWM?

FWRA.L is categorized as Global Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. FWRA.L tracks FTSE All-World Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FWRA.L and 0.19% for IWM.