IBIG vs. IWM
IBIG (iShares iBonds Oct 2030 Term TIPS ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBIG is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2030 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBIG returned 5.02% vs 39.10% for IWM. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBIG charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
IBIG vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBIG achieves a 1.64% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return.
IBIG
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- -0.37%
- YTD
- 1.64%
- 6M
- 1.42%
- 1Y
- 5.02%
- 3Y*
- —
- 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%
IBIG vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
IBIG iShares iBonds Oct 2030 Term TIPS ETF | 1.64% | 7.90% | 2.60% | 4.26% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 17.07% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 14.30% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBIG and IWM is 0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023 | 0.15 |
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
IBIG vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
IBIG
IWM
IBIG vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Oct 2030 Term TIPS ETF (IBIG) 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.
| IBIG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.12 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.20 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.34 | +0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.74 | 3.56 | +0.18 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.68 | 12.64 | +0.03 |
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
| IBIG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.93 | 2.05 | -0.12 |
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 | 1.43 | 0.37 | +1.07 |
Drawdowns
IBIG vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBIG drawdown since its inception was -3.21%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBIG and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBIG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.21% | -59.05% | +55.84% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.35% | -11.03% | +9.68% |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.43% | -1.49% | +1.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.77% | -10.77% | +10.00% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.40% | 3.10% | -2.70% |
Volatility
IBIG vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBonds Oct 2030 Term TIPS ETF (IBIG) is 0.62%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that IBIG 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
| IBIG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.62% | 5.75% | -5.13% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.70% | 13.53% | -11.83% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.62% | 19.20% | -16.58% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.29% | 22.52% | -18.23% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.29% | 23.04% | -18.75% |
IBIG vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBIG has a 0.10% 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
IBIG vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
IBIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.89%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBIG iShares iBonds Oct 2030 Term TIPS ETF | 3.89% | 4.70% | 4.15% | 0.78% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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
IBIG and IWM have a correlation of 0.10, 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 IBIG (0.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBIG dropped -3.21% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 1-year performance, IWM leads with 39.10% vs 5.02% for IBIG. On fees, IBIG is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIG has been the lower-risk option at 0.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, IWM has performed better with a 39.10% return vs 5.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBIG is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.
IBIG has the higher dividend yield at 3.89%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.
IBIG is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. IBIG tracks ICE 2030 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for IBIG and 0.19% for IWM.
IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.93), 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 IBIG 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