ISCG vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ISCG (iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ISCG is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Morningstar US Small Cap Broad Growth Extended Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ISCG returned 11.37%/yr vs 10.93%/yr for IWM. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ISCG charges 0.06%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

ISCG vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF (ISCG) 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, ISCG achieves a 12.92% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with ISCG having a 11.37% annualized return and IWM not far behind at 10.93%.

ISCG

• 1D: -0.93%
• 1M: 3.29%
• YTD: 12.92%
• 6M: 12.57%
• 1Y: 30.64%
• 3Y*: 17.01%
• 5Y*: 5.31%
• 10Y*: 11.37%

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)

ISCG vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ISCG iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF	12.92%	12.88%	13.35%	23.13%	-26.75%	-1.26%	43.41%	27.66%	-6.91%	24.68%
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 ISCG and IWM is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.96
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2004	0.92

The correlation between ISCG and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

ISCG vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ISCG	IWM
Industrials	24.6%	17.1%
Technology	21.4%	19.5%
Healthcare	15.4%	15.8%
Financial Services	10.6%	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	7.8%
Real Estate	5.2%	5.7%
Basic Materials	3.5%	4.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	2.1%
Communication Services	2.8%	2.0%
Energy	2.8%	6.0%
Utilities	1.0%	3.0%

Return for Risk

ISCG vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ISCG

ISCG Risk / Return Rank: 50
ISCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
ISCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
ISCG Omega Ratio Rank: 44
ISCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
ISCG Martin Ratio Rank: 58

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 62
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 53
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

ISCG vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends 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.

	ISCG	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.70	2.05	-0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.40	2.85	-0.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.34	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.69	3.56	-0.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.31	12.64	-2.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ISCG vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ISCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.70, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ISCG 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ISCG	IWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.70	2.05	-0.35
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.23	0.27	-0.04
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.49	0.48	+0.02
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.41	0.37	+0.04

Drawdowns

ISCG vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ISCG drawdown since its inception was -57.72%, roughly equal to the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISCG and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	ISCG	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.72%	-59.05%	+1.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.43%	-11.03%	-0.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.71%	-27.50%	+0.79%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.80%	-31.91%	-5.89%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.48%	-41.13%	-0.35%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.93%	-1.49%	+0.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.63%	-10.77%	-0.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.98%	3.10%	-0.12%

Volatility

ISCG vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF (ISCG) is 4.93%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	ISCG	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.93%	5.75%	-0.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.09%	13.53%	-0.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.13%	19.20%	-1.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.95%	22.52%	+0.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.16%	23.04%	+0.12%

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%.

Dividends

ISCG vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

ISCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.56%, less than IWM's 0.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ISCG iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF	0.56%	0.61%	0.84%	0.77%	0.92%	0.62%	0.10%	0.27%	0.40%	0.52%	1.19%	0.64%
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

Can I hold both ISCG and IWM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, ISCG and IWM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, ISCG or IWM?

IWM has higher volatility (5.75%) compared to ISCG (4.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISCG dropped -57.72% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, ISCG or IWM?

On 10-year performance, ISCG leads with 11.37% vs 10.93% for IWM. On fees, ISCG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, ISCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ISCG or IWM?

Over the 10-year period, ISCG has performed better with a 11.37% return vs 10.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ISCG or IWM?

ISCG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

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

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.88%, compared with 0.56% for ISCG.

What is the main difference between ISCG and IWM?

ISCG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. ISCG tracks Morningstar US Small Cap Broad Growth Extended Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for ISCG and 0.19% for IWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.70), 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.