ISCG vs. IWM
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF (ISCG) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM).
ISCG and IWM are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. ISCG is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Morningstar US Small Cap Broad Growth Extended Index. It was launched on Jun 28, 2004. IWM is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell 2000 Index. It was launched on May 22, 2000. Both ISCG and IWM are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: ISCG or IWM.
Key characteristics
| ISCG | IWM | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 19.29% | 18.17% |
| 1Y Return | 34.53% | 33.39% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -0.14% | 0.75% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 9.52% | 9.60% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 9.68% | 8.72% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 2.11 | 1.88 |
| Sortino Ratio | 2.97 | 2.70 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.36 | 1.33 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.41 | 1.60 |
| Martin Ratio | 12.69 | 10.83 |
| Ulcer Index | 3.22% | 3.76% |
| Daily Std Dev | 19.38% | 21.63% |
| Max Drawdown | -100.00% | -59.05% |
| Current Drawdown | -99.99% | -2.73% |
Correlation
The correlation between ISCG and IWM is 0.92, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
ISCG vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, ISCG achieves a 19.29% return, which is significantly higher than IWM's 18.17% return. Over the past 10 years, ISCG has outperformed IWM with an annualized return of 9.68%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively lower 8.72% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
ISCG vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
ISCG has a 0.06% 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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
ISCG vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF (ISCG) 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.
Dividends
ISCG vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
ISCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.55%, less than IWM's 1.09% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISCG iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF | 0.55% | 0.77% | 0.92% | 0.62% | 0.10% | 0.27% | 0.40% | 0.52% | 1.19% | 0.64% | 0.56% | 0.53% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 1.09% | 1.35% | 1.48% | 0.94% | 1.04% | 1.26% | 1.40% | 1.26% | 1.38% | 1.54% | 1.26% | 1.23% |
Drawdowns
ISCG vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ISCG drawdown since its inception was -100.00%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISCG and IWM. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
ISCG vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF (ISCG) is 6.04%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 7.49%. This indicates that ISCG 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.