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

Performance

ISCF vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Intl Small-Cap Multifactor ETF (ISCF) 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, ISCF achieves a 7.28% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return. Over the past 10 years, ISCF has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 9.19%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 10.93% annualized return.


ISCF

1D
-1.13%
1M
1.65%
YTD
7.28%
6M
10.16%
1Y
21.96%
3Y*
17.40%
5Y*
7.26%
10Y*
9.19%

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)

ISCF vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ISCF
iShares MSCI Intl Small-Cap Multifactor ETF
7.28%33.65%4.75%11.50%-15.07%13.31%7.65%26.32%-18.76%38.13%
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 ISCF and IWM is 0.69, 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

0.69

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

0.71

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

0.73

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

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 4, 2015

0.65

The correlation between ISCF and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

ISCF vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ISCF
IWM

Industrials

23.3%
17.1%

Consumer Cyclical

12.4%
7.8%

Financial Services

12.3%
15.8%

Basic Materials

11.2%
4.5%

Technology

10.5%
19.5%

Real Estate

8.8%
5.7%

Healthcare

5.4%
15.8%

Energy

4.8%
6.0%

Consumer Defensive

4.1%
2.1%

Communication Services

3.8%
2.0%

Utilities

3.6%
3.0%

Industrials

ISCF
23.3%
IWM
17.1%

Consumer Cyclical

ISCF
12.4%
IWM
7.8%

Financial Services

ISCF
12.3%
IWM
15.8%

Basic Materials

ISCF
11.2%
IWM
4.5%

Technology

ISCF
10.5%
IWM
19.5%

Real Estate

ISCF
8.8%
IWM
5.7%

Healthcare

ISCF
5.4%
IWM
15.8%

Energy

ISCF
4.8%
IWM
6.0%

Consumer Defensive

ISCF
4.1%
IWM
2.1%

Communication Services

ISCF
3.8%
IWM
2.0%

Utilities

ISCF
3.6%
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.


Return for Risk

ISCF vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ISCF
ISCF Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
ISCF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4343
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ISCF Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
ISCF Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
ISCF Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
ISCF Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
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.

ISCF vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Intl Small-Cap Multifactor ETF (ISCF) 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.


ISCFIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.52

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.68

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.34

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.94

3.56

-1.62

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.28

12.64

-5.36

ISCF vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ISCF Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ISCF 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


ISCFIWMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.54

2.05

-0.52

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.44

0.27

+0.17

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.53

0.48

+0.05

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.49

0.37

+0.12

Drawdowns

ISCF vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ISCF drawdown since its inception was -40.79%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISCF and IWM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ISCFIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-40.79%

-59.05%

+18.26%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.34%

-11.03%

-0.31%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.85%

-27.50%

+13.65%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.70%

-31.91%

+1.21%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-40.79%

-41.13%

+0.34%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.64%

-1.49%

-1.15%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.14%

-10.77%

+2.63%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.02%

3.10%

-0.08%

Volatility

ISCF vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Intl Small-Cap Multifactor ETF (ISCF) is 4.33%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that ISCF 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


ISCFIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.33%

5.75%

-1.42%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.86%

13.53%

-1.67%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.39%

19.20%

-4.81%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.66%

22.52%

-5.86%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.44%

23.04%

-5.60%

ISCF vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ISCF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.


Dividends

ISCF vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

ISCF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.50%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ISCF
iShares MSCI Intl Small-Cap Multifactor ETF
3.50%3.76%4.29%3.94%2.73%3.93%2.30%2.87%2.14%1.97%2.89%1.46%
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


ISCF and IWM have a correlation of 0.69, 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 ISCF (4.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISCF dropped -40.79% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 10.93% vs 9.19% for ISCF. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, ISCF has been the lower-risk option at 4.33%. 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 9.19%. 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 0.40% for ISCF.

ISCF has the higher dividend yield at 3.50%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.

ISCF is categorized as Foreign Small & Mid Cap Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. ISCF tracks MSCI World exUSA SmallCap Diversified Multi-Factor, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for ISCF and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.54), 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 ISCF 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