PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IWC vs. IWM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IWC vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

IWC (iShares Micro-Cap ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds from iShares - IWC tracks the Russell Microcap Index while IWM tracks the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWC returned 12.07%/yr vs 11.68%/yr for IWM. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. IWC charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

IWC vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Micro-Cap ETF (IWC) 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, IWC achieves a 23.36% return, which is significantly higher than IWM's 21.64% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IWC having a 12.07% annualized return and IWM not far behind at 11.68%.

IWC

1D
0.82%
1M
4.00%
YTD
23.36%
6M
19.51%
1Y
59.41%
3Y*
23.10%
5Y*
6.01%
10Y*
12.07%

IWM

1D
0.88%
1M
4.83%
YTD
21.64%
6M
18.08%
1Y
44.01%
3Y*
19.60%
5Y*
6.77%
10Y*
11.68%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWC vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWC
iShares Micro-Cap ETF		23.36%22.45%13.63%8.99%-21.93%18.67%20.88%22.20%-13.13%12.79%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		21.64%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between IWC and IWM is 0.94, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.94

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

0.95

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

0.96

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

0.96

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 16, 2005

0.96

The correlation between IWC and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWC vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWC
IWM

Healthcare

26.8%
15.6%

Technology

21.7%
20.1%

Financial Services

17.6%
15.5%

Industrials

13.3%
17.3%

Consumer Cyclical

5.2%
8.0%

Basic Materials

4.1%
4.5%

Energy

4.0%
6.0%

Real Estate

3.3%
5.5%

Communication Services

1.9%
1.7%

Consumer Defensive

1.6%
2.0%

Utilities

0.5%
3.1%

Healthcare

IWC
26.8%
IWM
15.6%

Technology

IWC
21.7%
IWM
20.1%

Financial Services

IWC
17.6%
IWM
15.5%

Industrials

IWC
13.3%
IWM
17.3%

Consumer Cyclical

IWC
5.2%
IWM
8.0%

Basic Materials

IWC
4.1%
IWM
4.5%

Energy

IWC
4.0%
IWM
6.0%

Real Estate

IWC
3.3%
IWM
5.5%

Communication Services

IWC
1.9%
IWM
1.7%

Consumer Defensive

IWC
1.6%
IWM
2.0%

Utilities

IWC
0.5%
IWM
3.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Micro-Cap ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with IWC:
IWC vs. FDMIWC vs. SPYIWC vs. IWXIWC vs. PVIVXIWC vs. VOOIWC vs. VTIWC vs. VO
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA

Return for Risk

IWC vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IWC
IWC Risk / Return Rank: 7777
Overall Rank
IWC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWC Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
IWC Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWC Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7272
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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.

IWC vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Micro-Cap ETF (IWC) 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.

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.

IWCIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.45
2.24

+0.21

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.14
3.05

+0.09

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.36

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.80

4.01

+0.79

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.64

14.19

+1.45

IWC vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWC Sharpe Ratio is 2.45, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWC 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...

Drawdowns

IWC vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWC drawdown since its inception was -64.61%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWC and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWCIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.61%

-59.05%

-5.56%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.43%

-11.03%

-1.40%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.46%

-27.50%

-1.96%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.61%

-31.91%

-8.70%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-47.21%

-41.13%

-6.08%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-15.25%

-10.75%

-4.50%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.81%

3.11%

+0.70%

Volatility

IWC vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

iShares Micro-Cap ETF (IWC) has a higher volatility of 8.66% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 6.47%. This indicates that IWC'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

IWCIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.66%

6.47%

+2.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

18.16%

14.28%

+3.88%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

24.39%

19.75%

+4.64%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.58%

22.60%

+1.98%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.52%

23.09%

+1.43%

IWC vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWC has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWC vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

IWC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.98%, more than IWM's 0.89% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWC
iShares Micro-Cap ETF		0.98%1.10%1.06%1.17%1.18%0.78%0.98%1.19%1.01%1.09%1.16%1.49%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		0.89%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

With a correlation of 0.94, IWC 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.

IWC has higher volatility (8.66%) compared to IWM (6.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWC dropped -64.61% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWC leads with 12.07% vs 11.68% for IWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 6.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWC has performed better with a 12.07% return vs 11.68%. 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 0.60% for IWC.

IWC has the higher dividend yield at 0.98%, compared with 0.89% for IWM.

IWC tracks Russell Microcap Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for IWC and 0.19% for IWM.

IWC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.45 vs 2.24), 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 IWC 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