PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IGF vs. IWM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IGF is a Infrastructure Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index (Net), while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IGF returned 8.14%/yr vs 10.70%/yr for IWM. Their 0.66 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. IGF charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

IGF vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) 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, IGF achieves a 10.41% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 18.79% return. Over the past 10 years, IGF has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 8.14%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 10.70% annualized return.

IGF

1D
-0.28%
1M
-0.09%
6M
5.19%
YTD
10.41%
1Y
16.30%
3Y*
16.16%
5Y*
11.05%
10Y*
8.14%
ALL TIME*
4.91%

IWM

1D
-0.48%
1M
-2.14%
6M
12.62%
YTD
18.79%
1Y
36.90%
3Y*
15.11%
5Y*
6.99%
10Y*
10.70%
ALL TIME*
8.73%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

IGF

iShares Global Infrastructure ETF
$38.15M$37.64M$47.97M

IWM

iShares Russell 2000 ETF
$6.67B$6.32B$7.45B

IGF vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IGF
iShares Global Infrastructure ETF		10.41%21.31%14.81%6.14%-1.26%11.57%-6.50%25.82%-9.95%19.31%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		18.79%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between IGF and IWM is 0.49, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.49

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.54

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.62

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.61

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2007

0.66

The correlation between IGF and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.49 (1 year) to 0.66 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IGF vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IGF
IWM

Utilities

40.0%
2.9%

Industrials

36.4%
13.7%

Energy

20.5%
5.6%

Real Estate

0.1%
7.0%

Basic Materials

-

4.5%

Communication Services

-

2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

-

9.2%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.8%

Financial Services

-

18.3%

Healthcare

-

20.0%

Technology

-

13.6%

Utilities

IGF
40.0%
IWM
2.9%

Industrials

IGF
36.4%
IWM
13.7%

Energy

IGF
20.5%
IWM
5.6%

Real Estate

IGF
0.1%
IWM
7.0%

Basic Materials

IGF

-

IWM
4.5%

Communication Services

IGF

-

IWM
2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

IGF

-

IWM
9.2%

Consumer Defensive

IGF

-

IWM
2.8%

Financial Services

IGF

-

IWM
18.3%

Healthcare

IGF

-

IWM
20.0%

Technology

IGF

-

IWM
13.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Global Infrastructure ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with IGF:
IGF vs. IFRAIGF vs. GIIIGF vs. NFRAIGF vs. SPYIGF vs. GLIFXIGF vs. VPUIGF vs. XLU
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. IWO

Return for Risk

IGF vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
IGF
IGF Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
IGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
IGF Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
IGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
IGF Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IGF vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

IGFIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.55
1.77

-0.21

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.25
2.51

-0.27

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.30

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.83

3.11

-0.28

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.59

11.02

-3.43

IGF vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IGF Sharpe Ratio is 1.55, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IGF 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...

Drawdowns

IGF vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IGF drawdown since its inception was -58.33%, roughly equal to the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IGF and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IGFIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.33%

-59.05%

+0.72%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.87%

-11.03%

+5.16%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-11.31%

-27.50%

+16.19%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.83%

-31.91%

+11.08%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.11%

-41.13%

-0.98%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.34%

-3.08%

+0.74%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.79%

-10.71%

-1.08%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.19%

3.11%

-0.92%

Volatility

IGF vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) is 2.75%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 3.82%. This indicates that IGF 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

IGFIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.75%

3.82%

-1.07%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.92%

14.12%

-5.20%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.69%

19.41%

-8.72%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.95%

22.48%

-8.53%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.71%

23.01%

-6.30%

IGF vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IGF has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

IGF vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

IGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.89%, more than IWM's 0.91% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IGF
iShares Global Infrastructure ETF		2.89%3.23%3.21%3.36%2.67%2.42%2.33%3.27%3.52%2.95%2.98%3.25%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		0.91%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

IGF 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 (3.82%) compared to IGF (2.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IGF dropped -58.33% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 10.70% vs 8.14% for IGF. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IGF has been the lower-risk option at 2.75%. 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 10.70% return vs 8.14%. 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 0.39% for IGF.

IGF has the higher dividend yield at 2.89%, compared with 0.91% for IWM.

IGF is categorized as Infrastructure Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index (Net), while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IGF and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 1.55), 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 IGF 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