ISTB vs. IWM
ISTB (iShares Core 1-5 Year USD Bond ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ISTB is a Short-Term Bond fund tracking the BBG US Universal 1-5 Year Index (USD), while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ISTB returned 2.27%/yr vs 10.93%/yr for IWM. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ISTB charges 0.06%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
ISTB vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ISTB achieves a 0.49% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return. Over the past 10 years, ISTB has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 2.27%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 10.93% annualized return.
ISTB
- 1D
- -0.08%
- 1M
- 0.15%
- YTD
- 0.49%
- 6M
- 0.71%
- 1Y
- 4.19%
- 3Y*
- 4.95%
- 5Y*
- 1.85%
- 10Y*
- 2.27%
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%
ISTB vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISTB iShares Core 1-5 Year USD Bond ETF | 0.49% | 6.36% | 4.37% | 5.56% | -6.08% | -0.71% | 4.75% | 5.61% | 1.02% | 1.72% |
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 ISTB and IWM is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.24 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.21 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2012 | 0.05 |
Over the past year, ISTB and IWM have become more correlated (0.28) than their long-term average of 0.05, meaning their price movements have been converging.
ISTB vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
ISTB
IWM
Utilities
Real Estate
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Technology
-
Utilities
ISTB
IWM
Real Estate
ISTB
IWM
Basic Materials
ISTB
-
IWM
Communication Services
ISTB
-
IWM
Consumer Cyclical
ISTB
-
IWM
Consumer Defensive
ISTB
-
IWM
Energy
ISTB
-
IWM
Financial Services
ISTB
-
IWM
Healthcare
ISTB
-
IWM
Industrials
ISTB
-
IWM
Technology
ISTB
-
IWM
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
ISTB vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
ISTB
IWM
ISTB vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core 1-5 Year USD Bond ETF (ISTB) 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.
| ISTB | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.32 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.84 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.46 | 1.34 | +0.13 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.34 | 3.56 | -0.22 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.72 | 12.64 | +0.07 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ISTB | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.37 | 2.05 | +0.32 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.67 | 0.27 | +0.39 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.91 | 0.48 | +0.43 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.84 | 0.37 | +0.47 |
Drawdowns
ISTB vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ISTB drawdown since its inception was -9.34%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISTB and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ISTB | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -9.34% | -59.05% | +49.71% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.26% | -11.03% | +9.77% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -1.36% | -27.50% | +26.14% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -9.34% | -31.91% | +22.57% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -9.34% | -41.13% | +31.79% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.42% | -1.49% | +1.07% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.22% | -10.77% | +9.55% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.33% | 3.10% | -2.77% |
Volatility
ISTB vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Core 1-5 Year USD Bond ETF (ISTB) is 0.54%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that ISTB 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
| ISTB | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.54% | 5.75% | -5.21% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.28% | 13.53% | -12.25% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.77% | 19.20% | -17.43% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 2.79% | 22.52% | -19.73% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 2.51% | 23.04% | -20.53% |
ISTB vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
ISTB 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
ISTB vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
ISTB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.25%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISTB iShares Core 1-5 Year USD Bond ETF | 4.25% | 4.12% | 3.83% | 2.97% | 2.01% | 1.69% | 2.20% | 2.75% | 2.57% | 2.06% | 1.90% | 1.58% |
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
ISTB and IWM have a correlation of 0.28, 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 ISTB (0.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISTB dropped -9.34% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 10.93% vs 2.27% for ISTB. On fees, ISTB is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, ISTB has been the lower-risk option at 0.54%. 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 2.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ISTB is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.
ISTB has the higher dividend yield at 4.25%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.
ISTB is categorized as Short-Term Bond, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. ISTB tracks BBG US Universal 1-5 Year Index (USD), while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for ISTB and 0.19% for IWM.
ISTB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 vs 2.05), 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.
Find the right allocation for ISTB 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