ISCV vs. BSMC

Last updated Aug 3, 2026

ISCV (iShares Morningstar Small Cap Value ETF) and BSMC (Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF) are both Small Cap Value Equities funds. ISCV is passively managed, while BSMC is actively managed. Over the past year, ISCV returned 32.31% vs 31.39% for BSMC. Their correlation of 0.91 means they have usually moved in the same direction. ISCV charges 0.06%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for BSMC.

Performance

ISCV vs. BSMC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Morningstar Small Cap Value ETF (ISCV) and Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF (BSMC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with ISCV having a 17.01% return and BSMC slightly lower at 16.23%.

ISCV

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: 0.89%
• 6M: 11.85%
• YTD: 17.01%
• 1Y: 32.31%
• 3Y*: 13.72%
• 5Y*: 9.24%
• 10Y*: 9.09%
• ALL TIME*: 8.97%

BSMC

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 1.89%
• 6M: 9.95%
• YTD: 16.23%
• 1Y: 31.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.50%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BSMC Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF	$430.04K	$466.32K	$438.95K
ISCV iShares Morningstar Small Cap Value ETF	$725.99K	$721.48K	$862.94K

ISCV vs. BSMC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ISCV iShares Morningstar Small Cap Value ETF	17.01%	10.38%	9.31%	18.99%
BSMC Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF	16.23%	15.52%	10.21%	11.69%

Correlation

The correlation between ISCV and BSMC is 0.88, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 5, 2023	0.91

The correlation between ISCV and BSMC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

ISCV vs. BSMC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ISCV	BSMC
Financial Services	22.4%	10.5%
Consumer Cyclical	14.6%	7.6%
Industrials	12.7%	16.0%
Healthcare	11.4%	23.3%
Real Estate	11.3%	-
Technology	8.4%	15.1%
Energy	5.0%	6.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	13.7%
Utilities	3.9%	-
Basic Materials	3.1%	3.8%
Communication Services	2.5%	3.6%

Return for Risk

ISCV vs. BSMC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ISCV

ISCV Risk / Return Rank: 84
ISCV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
ISCV Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
ISCV Omega Ratio Rank: 80
ISCV Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
ISCV Martin Ratio Rank: 85

BSMC

BSMC Risk / Return Rank: 86
BSMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
BSMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
BSMC Omega Ratio Rank: 84
BSMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
BSMC Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

ISCV vs. BSMC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Morningstar Small Cap Value ETF (ISCV) and Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF (BSMC). 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.

	ISCV	BSMC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.92	2.08	-0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.84	3.03	-0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.36	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.25	3.32	-0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.04	12.29	-0.24

ISCV vs. BSMC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ISCV Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is comparable to the BSMC Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ISCV and BSMC, 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

ISCV vs. BSMC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ISCV drawdown since its inception was -63.14%, which is greater than BSMC's maximum drawdown of -19.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISCV and BSMC.

Drawdown Indicators

	ISCV	BSMC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-63.14%	-19.15%	-43.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.25%	-9.02%	-0.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.35%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.35%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-51.56%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.36%	-1.41%	+0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.08%	-2.58%	-6.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.49%	2.44%	+0.05%

Volatility

ISCV vs. BSMC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Morningstar Small Cap Value ETF (ISCV) is 3.47%, while Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF (BSMC) has a volatility of 3.97%. This indicates that ISCV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BSMC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ISCV	BSMC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.47%	3.97%	-0.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.28%	10.41%	-0.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.74%	14.49%	+1.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.59%	15.96%	+4.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.20%	15.96%	+7.24%

ISCV vs. BSMC - Expense Ratio Comparison

ISCV has a 0.06% expense ratio, which is lower than BSMC's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

ISCV vs. BSMC - Dividend Comparison

ISCV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.83%, more than BSMC's 0.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BSMC Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF	0.90%	1.17%	1.02%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ISCV iShares Morningstar Small Cap Value ETF	1.83%	2.04%	2.01%	2.21%	2.12%	1.95%	2.01%	2.36%	2.48%	1.74%	2.49%	2.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ISCV and BSMC in my portfolio?

ISCV and BSMC have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ISCV or BSMC?

BSMC has higher volatility (3.97%) compared to ISCV (3.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISCV dropped -63.14% vs BSMC's -19.15%.

Which ETF is better, ISCV or BSMC?

On 1-year performance, ISCV leads with 32.31% vs 31.39% for BSMC. On fees, ISCV is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, ISCV has been the lower-risk option at 3.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ISCV or BSMC?

Over the 1-year period, ISCV has performed better with a 32.31% return vs 31.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ISCV or BSMC?

ISCV is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for BSMC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ISCV or BSMC?

ISCV has the higher dividend yield at 1.83%, compared with 0.90% for BSMC.

What is the main difference between ISCV and BSMC?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Brandes. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for ISCV and 0.70% for BSMC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BSMC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 1.92), 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.