IBGC vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

IBGC (iShares iBonds Dec 2046 Term Treasury ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBGC is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2046 Maturity US Treasury Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBGC charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

IBGC vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Dec 2046 Term Treasury ETF (IBGC) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

IBGC

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: -1.05%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWM

• 1D: -3.55%
• 1M: -1.80%
• YTD: 14.62%
• 6M: 12.89%
• 1Y: 36.52%
• 3Y*: 16.56%
• 5Y*: 5.66%
• 10Y*: 10.54%

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

IBGC vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
IBGC iShares iBonds Dec 2046 Term Treasury ETF	0.21%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	13.83%

Correlation

The correlation between IBGC and IWM is 0.69, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2026	0.69

Return for Risk

IBGC vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 59
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 51
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

IBGC vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2046 Term Treasury ETF (IBGC) 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IBGC	IWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	1.88	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.25	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.46	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.13	0.36	-0.23

Drawdowns

IBGC vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBGC drawdown since its inception was -4.29%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBGC and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBGC	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.29%	-59.05%	+54.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-11.03%	—
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	-1.88%	-3.55%	+1.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.27%	-10.76%	+9.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	3.11%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	IBGC	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	6.65%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	14.00%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.40%	19.54%	-11.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.40%	22.58%	-14.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.40%	23.06%	-14.66%

IBGC vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBGC has a 0.07% 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

IBGC vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

IBGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.81%, less than IWM's 0.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IBGC iShares iBonds Dec 2046 Term Treasury ETF	0.81%	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	0.90%	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

Can I hold both IBGC and IWM in my portfolio?

IBGC and IWM have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, IBGC or IWM?

On fees, IBGC is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBGC or IWM?

IBGC is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBGC or IWM?

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.90%, compared with 0.81% for IBGC.

What is the main difference between IBGC and IWM?

IBGC is categorized as Government Bonds, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. IBGC tracks ICE 2046 Maturity US Treasury Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IBGC and 0.19% for IWM.