IBHG vs. IWM
IBHG (iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBHG is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg 2027 Term High Yield and Income Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IBHG returned 7.37%/yr vs 17.88%/yr for IWM. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBHG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
IBHG vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBHG achieves a 0.96% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return.
IBHG
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- YTD
- 0.96%
- 6M
- 1.46%
- 1Y
- 4.61%
- 3Y*
- 7.37%
- 5Y*
- —
- 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%
IBHG vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBHG iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF | 0.96% | 6.90% | 7.42% | 11.27% | -8.88% | 1.07% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 17.07% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | -1.14% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBHG and IWM is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.49 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2021 | 0.61 |
The correlation between IBHG and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.49 (1 year) to 0.61 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
IBHG vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
IBHG
IWM
IBHG vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHG) 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.
| IBHG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.14 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.57 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.42 | 1.34 | +0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.38 | 3.56 | +2.81 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 23.30 | 12.64 | +10.65 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IBHG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.20 | 2.05 | +0.14 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.27 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.48 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.56 | 0.37 | +0.20 |
Drawdowns
IBHG vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBHG drawdown since its inception was -13.85%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBHG and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBHG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -13.85% | -59.05% | +45.20% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.73% | -11.03% | +10.30% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.39% | -27.50% | +24.11% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -31.91% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -41.13% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.22% | -1.49% | +1.27% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.67% | -10.77% | +8.10% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.20% | 3.10% | -2.90% |
Volatility
IBHG vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHG) is 0.58%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that IBHG 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
| IBHG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.58% | 5.75% | -5.17% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.53% | 13.53% | -12.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.11% | 19.20% | -17.09% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.37% | 22.52% | -16.15% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.37% | 23.04% | -16.67% |
IBHG vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBHG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
IBHG vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
IBHG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.08%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBHG iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF | 6.08% | 6.33% | 7.02% | 6.66% | 5.62% | 2.13% | 0.00% | 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
IBHG and IWM have a correlation of 0.49, 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 IBHG (0.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBHG dropped -13.85% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 3-year performance, IWM leads with 17.88% vs 7.37% for IBHG. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IBHG has been the lower-risk option at 0.58%. 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 17.88% return vs 7.37%. 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 IBHG.
IBHG has the higher dividend yield at 6.08%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.
IBHG is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. IBHG tracks Bloomberg 2027 Term High Yield and Income Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for IBHG and 0.19% for IWM.
IBHG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 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.
Find the right allocation for IBHG 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