PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

FXI vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FXI (iShares China Large-Cap ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FXI is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China 50 Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FXI returned 2.55%/yr vs 11.58%/yr for IWM. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FXI charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

FXI vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares China Large-Cap ETF (FXI) 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, FXI achieves a -13.61% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 20.47% return. Over the past 10 years, FXI has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 2.55%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 11.58% annualized return.

FXI

1D
-1.79%
1M
-6.88%
YTD
-13.61%
6M
-14.15%
1Y
-7.33%
3Y*
9.64%
5Y*
-4.39%
10Y*
2.55%

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)

FXI vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FXI
iShares China Large-Cap ETF		-13.61%28.95%28.98%-12.42%-20.66%-20.06%8.92%14.90%-13.28%36.26%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		20.47%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between FXI and IWM is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.42

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

0.38

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

0.41

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

0.46

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 8, 2004

0.55

The correlation between FXI and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.38 (3 years) to 0.55 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FXI vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
FXI
IWM

Financial Services

34.8%
15.5%

Consumer Cyclical

26.4%
8.0%

Communication Services

16.3%
1.7%

Technology

5.4%
20.1%

Energy

5.3%
6.0%

Basic Materials

3.9%
4.5%

Industrials

3.2%
17.3%

Healthcare

2.3%
15.6%

Real Estate

1.1%
5.5%

Consumer Defensive

0.9%
2.0%

Utilities

0.4%
3.1%

Financial Services

FXI
34.8%
IWM
15.5%

Consumer Cyclical

FXI
26.4%
IWM
8.0%

Communication Services

FXI
16.3%
IWM
1.7%

Technology

FXI
5.4%
IWM
20.1%

Energy

FXI
5.3%
IWM
6.0%

Basic Materials

FXI
3.9%
IWM
4.5%

Industrials

FXI
3.2%
IWM
17.3%

Healthcare

FXI
2.3%
IWM
15.6%

Real Estate

FXI
1.1%
IWM
5.5%

Consumer Defensive

FXI
0.9%
IWM
2.0%

Utilities

FXI
0.4%
IWM
3.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares China Large-Cap ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with FXI:
FXI vs. MCHIFXI vs. KWEBFXI vs. CQQQFXI vs. ASHRFXI vs. EWHFXI vs. EEMFXI vs. GXC
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA

Return for Risk

FXI vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FXI
FXI Risk / Return Rank: 55
Overall Rank
FXI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FXI Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
Sortino Ratio Rank
FXI Omega Ratio Rank: 55
Omega Ratio Rank
FXI Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
Calmar Ratio Rank
FXI Martin Ratio Rank: 55
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.

FXI vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares China Large-Cap ETF (FXI) 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.

FXIIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
-0.37
2.08

-2.45

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
-0.40
2.86

-3.26

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.95

1.34

-0.39

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.37

3.73

-4.10

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.90

13.18

-14.08

FXI vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FXI Sharpe Ratio is -0.37, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FXI 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

FXI vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FXI drawdown since its inception was -72.68%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FXI and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FXIIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-72.68%

-59.05%

-13.63%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-19.91%

-11.03%

-8.88%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.72%

-27.50%

-1.22%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-54.94%

-31.91%

-23.03%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-60.81%

-41.13%

-19.68%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-31.97%

-0.96%

-31.01%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-31.21%

-10.75%

-20.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.13%

3.11%

+5.02%

Volatility

FXI vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares China Large-Cap ETF (FXI) is 6.02%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 6.56%. This indicates that FXI 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

FXIIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.02%

6.56%

-0.54%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.66%

14.31%

+0.35%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.00%

19.74%

+0.26%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

31.72%

22.61%

+9.11%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.60%

23.06%

+4.54%

FXI vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FXI has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

FXI vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

FXI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.07%, more than IWM's 0.90% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FXI
iShares China Large-Cap ETF		2.07%2.42%1.76%3.17%2.61%1.60%2.19%2.74%2.69%2.31%2.69%2.90%
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

FXI and IWM have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWM has higher volatility (6.56%) compared to FXI (6.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FXI dropped -72.68% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 11.58% vs 2.55% for FXI. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FXI has been the lower-risk option at 6.02%. 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 11.58% return vs 2.55%. 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 0.74% for FXI.

FXI has the higher dividend yield at 2.07%, compared with 0.90% for IWM.

FXI is categorized as China Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. FXI tracks FTSE China 50 Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for FXI and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs -0.37), 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 FXI 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