IBHF vs. IWMI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBHF (iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF) and IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBHF is a Corporate Bonds fund actively managed by iShares, while IWMI is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Neos. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, IBHF returned 4.76% vs 34.38% for IWMI. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBHF charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for IWMI.

Performance

IBHF vs. IWMI - 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 NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBHF achieves a 0.41% return, which is significantly lower than IWMI's 13.36% return.

IBHF

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

IWMI

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: 3.18%
• YTD: 13.36%
• 6M: 13.24%
• 1Y: 34.38%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBHF vs. IWMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBHF iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF	0.41%	6.60%	5.49%
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	13.36%	14.97%	6.61%

Correlation

The correlation between IBHF and IWMI is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2024	0.45

The correlation between IBHF and IWMI shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (1 year) to 0.45 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IBHF vs. IWMI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBHF	IWMI
Energy	100.0%	6.5%
Basic Materials	-	5.0%
Communication Services	-	2.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	8.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.6%
Financial Services	-	16.0%
Healthcare	-	17.9%
Industrials	-	16.6%
Real Estate	-	6.3%
Technology	-	15.1%
Utilities	-	3.1%

Return for Risk

IBHF vs. IWMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBHF

IBHF Risk / Return Rank: 86
IBHF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
IBHF Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
IBHF Omega Ratio Rank: 83
IBHF Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
IBHF Martin Ratio Rank: 92

IWMI

IWMI Risk / Return Rank: 73
IWMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
IWMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
IWMI Omega Ratio Rank: 66
IWMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
IWMI Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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. IWMI - 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 NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI). 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.

	IBHF	IWMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.36	2.33	+0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.14	3.25	+0.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.41	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.48	4.11	+3.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	23.36	17.09	+6.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBHF vs. IWMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBHF Sharpe Ratio is 2.36, which is comparable to the IWMI Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBHF and IWMI, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IBHF	IWMI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.36	2.33	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.70	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.83	1.04	-0.21

Drawdowns

IBHF vs. IWMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBHF drawdown since its inception was -11.19%, smaller than the maximum IWMI drawdown of -23.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBHF and IWMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBHF	IWMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.19%	-23.88%	+12.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.64%	-8.40%	+7.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-2.53%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-11.19%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.58%	-1.02%	+0.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.80%	-4.12%	+2.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.20%	2.02%	-1.82%

Volatility

IBHF vs. IWMI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHF) is 0.76%, while NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF (IWMI) has a volatility of 4.31%. This indicates that IBHF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBHF	IWMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.76%	4.31%	-3.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.22%	10.74%	-9.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.03%	14.84%	-12.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.80%	17.89%	-12.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.66%	17.89%	-12.23%

IBHF vs. IWMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBHF has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than IWMI's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBHF vs. IWMI - Dividend Comparison

IBHF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.54%, less than IWMI's 13.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IBHF iShares iBonds 2026 Term High Yield and Income ETF	6.54%	6.73%	7.17%	7.33%	6.01%	4.55%	0.61%
IWMI NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF	13.52%	14.05%	8.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBHF and IWMI in my portfolio?

IBHF and IWMI have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBHF or IWMI?

IWMI has higher volatility (4.31%) compared to IBHF (0.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBHF dropped -11.19% vs IWMI's -23.88%.

Which ETF is better, IBHF or IWMI?

On 1-year performance, IWMI leads with 34.38% vs 4.76% for IBHF. On fees, IBHF is cheaper at 0.35% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, IBHF or IWMI?

Over the 1-year period, IWMI has performed better with a 34.38% return vs 4.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBHF or IWMI?

IBHF is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for IWMI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBHF or IWMI?

IWMI has the higher dividend yield at 13.52%, compared with 6.54% for IBHF.

What is the main difference between IBHF and IWMI?

IBHF is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while IWMI is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for IBHF and 0.68% for IWMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBHF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 2.33), 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.