PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IEMG vs. IWM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IEMG vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) 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, 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%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IEMG vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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

35.0%
19.5%

Financial Services

18.4%
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

9.5%
7.8%

Industrials

9.0%
17.1%

Basic Materials

6.9%
4.5%

Communication Services

6.4%
2.0%

Energy

3.8%
6.0%

Healthcare

3.7%
15.8%

Consumer Defensive

3.3%
2.1%

Utilities

2.2%
3.0%

Real Estate

1.7%
5.7%

Technology

IEMG
35.0%
IWM
19.5%

Financial Services

IEMG
18.4%
IWM
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

IEMG
9.5%
IWM
7.8%

Industrials

IEMG
9.0%
IWM
17.1%

Basic Materials

IEMG
6.9%
IWM
4.5%

Communication Services

IEMG
6.4%
IWM
2.0%

Energy

IEMG
3.8%
IWM
6.0%

Healthcare

IEMG
3.7%
IWM
15.8%

Consumer Defensive

IEMG
3.3%
IWM
2.1%

Utilities

IEMG
2.2%
IWM
3.0%

Real Estate

IEMG
1.7%
IWM
5.7%

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

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

IEMG
IEMG Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
IEMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEMG Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
IEMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEMG Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

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.


IEMGIWMDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.72

2.05

+0.67

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.53

2.85

+0.67

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.50

1.34

+0.16

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

4.00

3.56

+0.44

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

15.38

12.64

+2.74

IEMG vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IEMG Sharpe Ratio is 2.72, which is higher than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IEMG 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


IEMGIWMDifference

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


IEMGIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest 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 Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.34%

-1.49%

+0.15%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.97%

-10.77%

-2.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth 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


IEMGIWMDifference

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.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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.

Portfolio Optimizer

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