ION vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ION is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ION returned 17.31%/yr vs 17.23%/yr for IWM. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ION charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

ION vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ION achieves a 13.12% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 19.22% return.

ION

• 1D: 4.15%
• 1M: -8.49%
• YTD: 13.12%
• 6M: 23.38%
• 1Y: 112.30%
• 3Y*: 17.31%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWM

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: 5.53%
• YTD: 19.22%
• 6M: 16.00%
• 1Y: 41.75%
• 3Y*: 17.23%
• 5Y*: 6.07%
• 10Y*: 11.27%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ION vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	13.12%	108.37%	-20.02%	-14.10%	-8.45%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	19.22%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	-6.51%

Correlation

The correlation between ION and IWM is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2022	0.49

ION vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ION	IWM
Basic Materials	13.7%	4.7%
Financial Services	13.0%	15.4%
Energy	2.3%	5.4%
Real Estate	2.3%	5.9%
Healthcare	1.7%	16.3%
Industrials	1.7%	17.9%
Communication Services	-	2.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	7.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.2%
Technology	-	19.2%
Utilities	-	2.7%

Return for Risk

ION vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 84
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 78
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
ION Martin Ratio Rank: 84

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 72
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 63
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

ION vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) 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.

	ION	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.81	1.99	+0.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.09	2.75	+0.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.33	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.74	3.57	+1.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.01	12.63	+2.38

ION vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ION Sharpe Ratio is 2.81, which is higher than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ION 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.

Drawdowns

ION vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ION drawdown since its inception was -52.08%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ION and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	ION	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.08%	-59.05%	+6.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.30%	-11.03%	-12.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.47%	-27.50%	-18.97%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-31.91%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.68%	0.00%	-14.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.64%	-10.76%	-12.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.34%	3.12%	+4.22%

Volatility

ION vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) has a higher volatility of 15.42% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 7.16%. This indicates that ION'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.

Volatility by Period

	ION	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.42%	7.16%	+8.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	31.74%	14.29%	+17.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.38%	19.73%	+19.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.51%	22.61%	+8.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.51%	23.08%	+8.43%

ION vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ION has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

ION vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

ION's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.41%, more than IWM's 0.87% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.41%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	0.87%	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

Can I hold both ION and IWM in my portfolio?

ION and IWM have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ION or IWM?

ION has higher volatility (15.42%) compared to IWM (7.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ION dropped -52.08% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, ION or IWM?

On 3-year performance, ION leads with 17.31% vs 17.23% for IWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 7.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ION or IWM?

Over the 3-year period, ION has performed better with a 17.31% return vs 17.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ION or IWM?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for ION.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ION or IWM?

ION has the higher dividend yield at 1.41%, compared with 0.87% for IWM.

What is the main difference between ION and IWM?

ION is categorized as Lithium & Battery Metals, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. ION tracks S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for ION and 0.19% for IWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ION currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.81 vs 1.99), 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.