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

Performance

ITB vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) 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, ITB achieves a -3.80% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return. Over the past 10 years, ITB has outperformed IWM with an annualized return of 13.64%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively lower 10.93% annualized return.


ITB

1D
-0.85%
1M
1.29%
YTD
-3.80%
6M
-12.12%
1Y
4.04%
3Y*
7.27%
5Y*
6.42%
10Y*
13.64%

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)

ITB vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ITB
iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF
-3.80%-5.26%2.06%68.91%-26.26%49.25%26.42%48.70%-30.92%59.65%
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 ITB and IWM is 0.57, 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

0.58

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

0.67

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

0.70

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

0.67

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2006

0.70

The correlation between ITB and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.57 (1 year) to 0.70 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ITB vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ITB
IWM

Consumer Cyclical

71.8%
7.8%

Industrials

19.1%
17.1%

Basic Materials

8.6%
4.5%

Real Estate

0.5%
5.7%

Communication Services

-

2.0%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.1%

Energy

-

6.0%

Financial Services

-

15.8%

Healthcare

-

15.8%

Technology

-

19.5%

Utilities

-

3.0%

Consumer Cyclical

ITB
71.8%
IWM
7.8%

Industrials

ITB
19.1%
IWM
17.1%

Basic Materials

ITB
8.6%
IWM
4.5%

Real Estate

ITB
0.5%
IWM
5.7%

Communication Services

ITB

-

IWM
2.0%

Consumer Defensive

ITB

-

IWM
2.1%

Energy

ITB

-

IWM
6.0%

Financial Services

ITB

-

IWM
15.8%

Healthcare

ITB

-

IWM
15.8%

Technology

ITB

-

IWM
19.5%

Utilities

ITB

-

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

ITB vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ITB
ITB Risk / Return Rank: 1111
Overall Rank
ITB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1010
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ITB Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
ITB Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
ITB Calmar Ratio Rank: 1010
Calmar Ratio Rank
ITB Martin Ratio Rank: 1010
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.

ITB vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) 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.


ITBIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.91

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.40

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.05

1.34

-0.29

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.16

3.56

-3.41

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.31

12.64

-12.33

ITB vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ITB Sharpe Ratio is 0.14, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ITB 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


ITBIWMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.14

2.05

-1.91

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.22

0.27

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.46

0.48

-0.02

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.11

0.37

-0.26

Drawdowns

ITB vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ITB drawdown since its inception was -86.53%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ITB and IWM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ITBIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-86.53%

-59.05%

-27.48%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-26.04%

-11.03%

-15.01%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-33.35%

-27.50%

-5.85%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.55%

-31.91%

-8.64%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-52.10%

-41.13%

-10.97%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-27.07%

-1.49%

-25.58%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-37.10%

-10.77%

-26.33%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

13.09%

3.10%

+9.99%

Volatility

ITB vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) has a higher volatility of 8.17% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 5.75%. This indicates that ITB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ITBIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.17%

5.75%

+2.42%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

20.42%

13.53%

+6.89%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

29.47%

19.20%

+10.27%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.19%

22.52%

+6.67%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

30.00%

23.04%

+6.96%

ITB vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ITB has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.


Dividends

ITB vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

ITB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.23%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ITB
iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF
1.23%1.67%0.46%0.48%0.86%0.37%0.46%0.50%0.63%0.28%0.43%0.34%
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


ITB and IWM have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ITB has higher volatility (8.17%) compared to IWM (5.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ITB dropped -86.53% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, ITB leads with 13.64% vs 10.93% for IWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 5.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, ITB has performed better with a 13.64% return vs 10.93%. 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 0.42% for ITB.

ITB has the higher dividend yield at 1.23%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.

ITB is categorized as Building & Construction, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. ITB tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Home Construction Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for ITB and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 0.14), 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 ITB 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