IEMG vs. IWM
IEMG (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IEMG is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IEMG returned 10.41%/yr vs 10.93%/yr for IWM. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IEMG charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
IEMG vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IEMG achieves a 26.21% return, which is significantly higher than IWM's 17.07% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IEMG having a 10.41% annualized return and IWM not far ahead at 10.93%.
IEMG
- 1D
- -1.34%
- 1M
- 7.97%
- YTD
- 26.21%
- 6M
- 28.63%
- 1Y
- 52.58%
- 3Y*
- 23.55%
- 5Y*
- 7.58%
- 10Y*
- 10.41%
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%
IEMG vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | 26.21% | 32.56% | 6.50% | 11.52% | -19.98% | -0.64% | 17.87% | 17.81% | -14.92% | 37.38% |
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 IEMG and IWM is 0.65, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.65 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.61 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.63 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.62 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2012 | 0.62 |
The correlation between IEMG and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.
IEMG vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IEMG
IWM
Technology
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Basic Materials
Communication Services
Energy
Healthcare
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
Real Estate
Technology
IEMG
IWM
Financial Services
IEMG
IWM
Consumer Cyclical
IEMG
IWM
Industrials
IEMG
IWM
Basic Materials
IEMG
IWM
Communication Services
IEMG
IWM
Energy
IEMG
IWM
Healthcare
IEMG
IWM
Consumer Defensive
IEMG
IWM
Utilities
IEMG
IWM
Real Estate
IEMG
IWM
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
IEMG vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
IEMG
IWM
IEMG vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) 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.
| IEMG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.72 | 2.05 | +0.67 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.53 | 2.85 | +0.67 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.50 | 1.34 | +0.16 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.00 | 3.56 | +0.44 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.38 | 12.64 | +2.74 |
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
| IEMG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.72 | 2.05 | +0.67 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.41 | 0.27 | +0.14 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.52 | 0.48 | +0.05 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.35 | 0.37 | -0.01 |
Drawdowns
IEMG vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IEMG drawdown since its inception was -38.71%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IEMG and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IEMG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -38.71% | -59.05% | +20.34% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.21% | -11.03% | -2.18% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.21% | -27.50% | +10.29% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -35.83% | -31.91% | -3.92% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -38.71% | -41.13% | +2.42% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.34% | -1.49% | +0.15% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.97% | -10.77% | -2.20% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.43% | 3.10% | +0.33% |
Volatility
IEMG vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) has a higher volatility of 8.31% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 5.75%. This indicates that IEMG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IEMG | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.31% | 5.75% | +2.56% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.93% | 13.53% | +3.40% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.43% | 19.20% | +0.23% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.38% | 22.52% | -4.14% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.03% | 23.04% | -3.01% |
IEMG vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
IEMG has a 0.09% 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
IEMG vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
IEMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.18%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | 2.18% | 2.75% | 3.20% | 2.89% | 2.71% | 3.06% | 1.87% | 3.15% | 2.76% | 2.35% | 2.28% | 2.53% |
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
IEMG and IWM have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IEMG has higher volatility (8.31%) compared to IWM (5.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IEMG dropped -38.71% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 10.93% vs 10.41% for IEMG. On fees, IEMG is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 5.75%. 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 10.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IEMG is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.
IEMG has the higher dividend yield at 2.18%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.
IEMG is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. IEMG tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for IEMG and 0.19% for IWM.
IEMG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.72 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 IEMG 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