PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IAT vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IAT (iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IAT is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Select Regional Banks Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IAT returned 7.95%/yr vs 10.93%/yr for IWM. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IAT charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

IAT vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT) 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, IAT achieves a 2.80% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return. Over the past 10 years, IAT has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 7.95%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 10.93% annualized return.

IAT

1D
-1.71%
1M
-1.74%
YTD
2.80%
6M
7.09%
1Y
22.99%
3Y*
22.20%
5Y*
1.35%
10Y*
7.95%

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)

IAT vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IAT
iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF		2.80%13.05%24.36%-8.53%-20.61%38.89%-7.60%31.38%-17.45%10.42%
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 IAT and IWM is 0.64, 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

0.64

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

0.72

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

0.75

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

0.73

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2006

0.74

The correlation between IAT and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (1 year) to 0.75 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IAT vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IAT
IWM

Financial Services

100.0%
15.8%

Basic Materials

-

4.5%

Communication Services

-

2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

-

7.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.1%

Energy

-

6.0%

Healthcare

-

15.8%

Industrials

-

17.1%

Real Estate

-

5.7%

Technology

-

19.5%

Utilities

-

3.0%

Financial Services

IAT
100.0%
IWM
15.8%

Basic Materials

IAT

-

IWM
4.5%

Communication Services

IAT

-

IWM
2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

IAT

-

IWM
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

IAT

-

IWM
2.1%

Energy

IAT

-

IWM
6.0%

Healthcare

IAT

-

IWM
15.8%

Industrials

IAT

-

IWM
17.1%

Real Estate

IAT

-

IWM
5.7%

Technology

IAT

-

IWM
19.5%

Utilities

IAT

-

IWM
3.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with IAT:
IAT vs. KREIAT vs. KCEIAT vs. MTBIAT vs. PKWIAT vs. XLFIAT vs. JPMIAT vs. SPY
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. IWO

Return for Risk

IAT vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IAT
IAT Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
IAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
IAT Omega Ratio Rank: 2929
Omega Ratio Rank
IAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
IAT Martin Ratio Rank: 2525
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
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.

IAT vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT) 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.

IATIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.06
2.05

-0.99

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.52
2.85

-1.33

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.20

1.34

-0.14

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.32

3.56

-2.24

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.38

12.64

-9.26

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IAT vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.06, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IAT 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

IATIWMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.06

2.05

-0.99

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.05

0.27

-0.23

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.26

0.48

-0.22

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.10

0.37

-0.27

Drawdowns

IAT vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IAT drawdown since its inception was -77.22%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IAT and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IATIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-77.22%

-59.05%

-18.17%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.49%

-11.03%

-6.46%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.29%

-27.50%

-1.79%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-55.55%

-31.91%

-23.64%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-55.55%

-41.13%

-14.42%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.75%

-1.49%

-8.26%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-26.97%

-10.77%

-16.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.81%

3.10%

+3.71%

Volatility

IAT vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT) has a higher volatility of 6.12% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 5.75%. This indicates that IAT'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

IATIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.12%

5.75%

+0.37%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.74%

13.53%

+2.21%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.86%

19.20%

+2.66%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.03%

22.52%

+6.51%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

30.78%

23.04%

+7.74%

IAT vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IAT has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

IAT vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

IAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.88%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IAT
iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF		2.88%2.94%2.95%3.56%3.12%1.88%2.87%2.49%2.48%1.55%1.52%1.78%
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

IAT and IWM have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IAT has higher volatility (6.12%) compared to IWM (5.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IAT dropped -77.22% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 10.93% vs 7.95% for IAT. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 5.75%. 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 10.93% return vs 7.95%. 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 0.42% for IAT.

IAT has the higher dividend yield at 2.88%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.

IAT is categorized as Financials Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. IAT tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Regional Banks Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for IAT and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.06), 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 IAT 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