PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ICF vs. IWM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ICF vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ICF (iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ICF is a REIT fund tracking the Cohen & Steers Realty Majors Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ICF returned 5.54%/yr vs 10.93%/yr for IWM. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ICF charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

ICF vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF (ICF) 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, ICF achieves a 12.19% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return. Over the past 10 years, ICF has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 5.54%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 10.93% annualized return.

ICF

1D
0.17%
1M
-0.92%
YTD
12.19%
6M
11.56%
1Y
11.29%
3Y*
10.12%
5Y*
3.01%
10Y*
5.54%

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)

ICF vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ICF
iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF		12.19%1.85%5.30%10.36%-26.12%44.17%-5.43%25.48%-2.55%4.90%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		17.07%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between ICF and IWM is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.42

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

0.53

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

0.58

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2001

0.59

The correlation between ICF and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.42 (1 year) to 0.59 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ICF vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ICF
IWM

Real Estate

100.0%
5.7%

Basic Materials

-

4.5%

Communication Services

-

2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

-

7.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.1%

Energy

-

6.0%

Financial Services

-

15.8%

Healthcare

-

15.8%

Industrials

-

17.1%

Technology

-

19.5%

Utilities

-

3.0%

Real Estate

ICF
100.0%
IWM
5.7%

Basic Materials

ICF

-

IWM
4.5%

Communication Services

ICF

-

IWM
2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

ICF

-

IWM
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

ICF

-

IWM
2.1%

Energy

ICF

-

IWM
6.0%

Financial Services

ICF

-

IWM
15.8%

Healthcare

ICF

-

IWM
15.8%

Industrials

ICF

-

IWM
17.1%

Technology

ICF

-

IWM
19.5%

Utilities

ICF

-

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.

iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with ICF:
ICF vs. VNQICF vs. USRTICF vs. IYRICF vs. FRELICF vs. ICFIICF vs. SDIVICF vs. XLRE
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. IWO

Return for Risk

ICF vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ICF
ICF Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
ICF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICF Sortino Ratio Rank: 2222
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICF Omega Ratio Rank: 2222
Omega Ratio Rank
ICF Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICF Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
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.

ICF vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF (ICF) 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.

ICFIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.84
2.05

-1.22

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.20
2.85

-1.66

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.15

1.34

-0.19

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.38

3.56

-2.18

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.92

12.64

-8.72

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ICF vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICF Sharpe Ratio is 0.84, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICF 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

ICFIWMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.84

2.05

-1.22

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.16

0.27

-0.11

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.27

0.48

-0.21

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.31

0.37

-0.05

Drawdowns

ICF vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICF drawdown since its inception was -76.74%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICF and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ICFIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-76.74%

-59.05%

-17.69%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.20%

-11.03%

+2.83%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.25%

-27.50%

+10.25%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.74%

-31.91%

-2.83%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-40.22%

-41.13%

+0.91%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.67%

-1.49%

-1.18%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.18%

-10.77%

-3.41%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.88%

3.10%

-0.22%

Volatility

ICF vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF (ICF) is 3.71%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that ICF 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

ICFIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.71%

5.75%

-2.04%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.85%

13.53%

-3.68%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.57%

19.20%

-5.63%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.91%

22.52%

-3.61%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.58%

23.04%

-2.46%

ICF vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICF has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICF vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

ICF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.48%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ICF
iShares Cohen & Steers REIT ETF		2.48%2.88%2.66%2.76%2.64%1.82%2.38%2.55%3.20%3.10%4.21%3.30%
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

ICF and IWM have a correlation of 0.42, 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 ICF (3.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICF dropped -76.74% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 10.93% vs 5.54% for ICF. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, ICF has been the lower-risk option at 3.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWM has performed better with a 10.93% return vs 5.54%. 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 0.34% for ICF.

ICF has the higher dividend yield at 2.48%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.

ICF is categorized as REIT, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. ICF tracks Cohen & Steers Realty Majors Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for ICF and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 0.84), 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 ICF 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