PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IBHF vs. IWM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IBHF vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHF) 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, IBHF achieves a 0.41% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return.


IBHF

1D
-0.04%
1M
-0.05%
YTD
0.41%
6M
0.86%
1Y
4.76%
3Y*
7.23%
5Y*
4.05%
10Y*

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)

IBHF vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
IBHF
iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF
0.41%6.60%8.55%10.40%-6.66%4.43%2.97%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
17.07%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%15.70%

Correlation

The correlation between IBHF and IWM is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.29

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

0.49

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

0.59

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2020

0.59

Over the past year, the correlation between IBHF and IWM has dropped to 0.29 - well below their long-term average of 0.59, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

IBHF vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IBHF
IWM

Energy

100.0%
6.0%

Basic Materials

-

4.5%

Communication Services

-

2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

-

7.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.1%

Financial Services

-

15.8%

Healthcare

-

15.8%

Industrials

-

17.1%

Real Estate

-

5.7%

Technology

-

19.5%

Utilities

-

3.0%

Energy

IBHF
100.0%
IWM
6.0%

Basic Materials

IBHF

-

IWM
4.5%

Communication Services

IBHF

-

IWM
2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

IBHF

-

IWM
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

IBHF

-

IWM
2.1%

Financial Services

IBHF

-

IWM
15.8%

Healthcare

IBHF

-

IWM
15.8%

Industrials

IBHF

-

IWM
17.1%

Real Estate

IBHF

-

IWM
5.7%

Technology

IBHF

-

IWM
19.5%

Utilities

IBHF

-

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.


Return for Risk

IBHF vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBHF
IBHF Risk / Return Rank: 8686
Overall Rank
IBHF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBHF Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBHF Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
IBHF Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBHF Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
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.

IBHF vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHF) 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.


IBHFIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.31

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.29

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.51

1.34

+0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

7.48

3.56

+3.92

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

23.36

12.64

+10.72

IBHF vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBHF Sharpe Ratio is 2.36, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBHF 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


IBHFIWMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.36

2.05

+0.31

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.70

0.27

+0.43

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.83

0.37

+0.46

Drawdowns

IBHF vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBHF drawdown since its inception was -11.19%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBHF and IWM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IBHFIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-11.19%

-59.05%

+47.86%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-0.64%

-11.03%

+10.39%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-2.53%

-27.50%

+24.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-11.19%

-31.91%

+20.72%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.13%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.58%

-1.49%

+0.91%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.80%

-10.77%

+8.97%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.20%

3.10%

-2.90%

Volatility

IBHF vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHF) is 0.76%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that IBHF 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


IBHFIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.76%

5.75%

-4.99%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

1.22%

13.53%

-12.31%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.03%

19.20%

-17.17%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.80%

22.52%

-16.72%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.66%

23.04%

-17.38%

IBHF vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBHF has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.


Dividends

IBHF vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

IBHF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.54%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IBHF
iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF
6.54%6.73%7.17%7.33%6.01%4.55%0.61%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
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


IBHF and IWM have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWM has higher volatility (5.75%) compared to IBHF (0.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBHF dropped -11.19% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 5-year performance, IWM leads with 6.11% vs 4.05% for IBHF. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IBHF has been the lower-risk option at 0.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, IWM has performed better with a 6.11% return vs 4.05%. 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 0.35% for IBHF.

IBHF has the higher dividend yield at 6.54%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.

IBHF is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for IBHF and 0.19% for IWM.

IBHF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 2.05), 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 IBHF 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