PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

HAPS vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

HAPS (Harbor Human Capital Factor US Small Cap ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds - HAPS tracks the Human Capital Factor Small Cap Index - Benchmark TR Gross while IWM tracks the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, HAPS returned 13.58%/yr vs 19.22%/yr for IWM. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. HAPS charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

HAPS vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Harbor Human Capital Factor US Small Cap ETF (HAPS) 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, HAPS achieves a 14.76% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 20.47% return.

HAPS

1D
0.13%
1M
4.37%
YTD
14.76%
6M
12.78%
1Y
30.70%
3Y*
13.58%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

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)

HAPS vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023
HAPS
Harbor Human Capital Factor US Small Cap ETF		14.76%8.35%4.08%13.63%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		20.47%12.66%11.38%15.42%

Correlation

The correlation between HAPS and IWM is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

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

0.90

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

0.95

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 13, 2023

0.95

The correlation between HAPS and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

HAPS vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
HAPS
IWM

Financial Services

17.3%
15.5%

Technology

16.8%
20.1%

Healthcare

16.1%
15.6%

Industrials

14.7%
17.3%

Consumer Cyclical

8.4%
8.0%

Energy

7.2%
6.0%

Real Estate

5.9%
5.5%

Basic Materials

5.7%
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

2.7%
2.0%

Communication Services

2.7%
1.7%

Utilities

2.5%
3.1%

Financial Services

HAPS
17.3%
IWM
15.5%

Technology

HAPS
16.8%
IWM
20.1%

Healthcare

HAPS
16.1%
IWM
15.6%

Industrials

HAPS
14.7%
IWM
17.3%

Consumer Cyclical

HAPS
8.4%
IWM
8.0%

Energy

HAPS
7.2%
IWM
6.0%

Real Estate

HAPS
5.9%
IWM
5.5%

Basic Materials

HAPS
5.7%
IWM
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

HAPS
2.7%
IWM
2.0%

Communication Services

HAPS
2.7%
IWM
1.7%

Utilities

HAPS
2.5%
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.

Harbor Human Capital Factor US Small Cap ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with HAPS:
HAPS vs. HAPIHAPS vs. SIFIHAPS vs. VBKHAPS vs. SPYHAPS vs. RWJHAPS vs. GDIVHAPS vs. HGER
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA

Return for Risk

HAPS vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
HAPS
HAPS Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
HAPS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HAPS Sortino Ratio Rank: 6363
Sortino Ratio Rank
HAPS Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
HAPS Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
HAPS Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
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.

HAPS vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harbor Human Capital Factor US Small Cap ETF (HAPS) 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.

HAPSIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.81
2.08

-0.28

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.66
2.86

-0.20

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.34

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.08

3.73

-0.64

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.43

13.18

-2.75

HAPS vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HAPS Sharpe Ratio is 1.81, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HAPS 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

HAPS vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HAPS drawdown since its inception was -27.44%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HAPS and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

HAPSIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.44%

-59.05%

+31.61%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.01%

-11.03%

+1.02%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.44%

-27.50%

+0.06%

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

0.00%

-0.96%

+0.96%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.04%

-10.75%

+4.71%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.95%

3.11%

-0.16%

Volatility

HAPS vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Harbor Human Capital Factor US Small Cap ETF (HAPS) is 4.01%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 6.56%. This indicates that HAPS 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

HAPSIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.01%

6.56%

-2.55%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.92%

14.31%

-2.39%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.10%

19.74%

-2.64%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.75%

22.61%

-1.86%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.75%

23.06%

-2.31%

HAPS vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

HAPS has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

HAPS vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

HAPS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.49%, less than IWM's 0.90% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
HAPS
Harbor Human Capital Factor US Small Cap ETF		0.49%0.57%0.72%0.42%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
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

HAPS and IWM have a correlation of 0.90, 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 HAPS (4.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HAPS dropped -27.44% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 3-year performance, IWM leads with 19.22% vs 13.58% for HAPS. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, HAPS has been the lower-risk option at 4.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, IWM has performed better with a 19.22% return vs 13.58%. 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 0.60% for HAPS.

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.90%, compared with 0.49% for HAPS.

HAPS tracks Human Capital Factor Small Cap Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: Harbor and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for HAPS and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 1.81), 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 HAPS 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