IWF vs. IWM

Last updated Jul 31, 2026

IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWF returned 17.12%/yr vs 10.59%/yr for IWM. Their correlation of 0.80 means they have usually moved in the same direction. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

IWF vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) 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, IWF achieves a -0.58% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 19.36% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has outperformed IWM with an annualized return of 17.12%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively lower 10.59% annualized return.

IWF

• 1D: 2.96%
• 1M: -5.43%
• 6M: 0.24%
• YTD: -0.58%
• 1Y: 7.10%
• 3Y*: 18.75%
• 5Y*: 11.51%
• 10Y*: 17.12%
• ALL TIME*: 8.19%

IWM

• 1D: 1.39%
• 1M: -2.62%
• 6M: 11.56%
• YTD: 19.36%
• 1Y: 33.43%
• 3Y*: 15.12%
• 5Y*: 7.09%
• 10Y*: 10.59%
• ALL TIME*: 8.75%

*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)
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	$612.04M	$598.78M	$645.39M
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	$6.69B	$6.23B	$7.44B

IWF vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	-0.58%	18.33%	33.12%	42.59%	-29.31%	27.43%	38.25%	35.86%	-1.67%	29.95%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	19.36%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	-20.48%	14.54%	20.03%	25.39%	-11.12%	14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between IWF and IWM is 0.64, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.63
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.73
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2000	0.80

The correlation between IWF and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.63 (3 years) to 0.80 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWF vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWF	IWM
Technology	54.2%	13.8%
Communication Services	16.2%	1.9%
Industrials	9.0%	14.3%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	9.2%
Healthcare	5.4%	20.1%
Financial Services	4.3%	18.0%
Consumer Defensive	1.2%	2.7%
Energy	0.5%	5.6%
Real Estate	0.4%	6.9%
Utilities	0.3%	2.8%
Basic Materials	0.3%	4.2%

Return for Risk

IWF vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 20
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 19
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 20

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 80
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 73
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

IWF vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) 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.

	IWF	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.41	1.73	-1.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.68	2.47	-1.78
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.29	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.44	3.05	-2.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.31	10.81	-9.50

IWF vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 0.41, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF 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.

Drawdowns

IWF vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWF	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.25%	-59.05%	-5.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.27%	-11.03%	-5.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.36%	-27.50%	+4.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.72%	-31.91%	-0.81%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.72%	-41.13%	+8.41%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.73%	-2.62%	-6.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.98%	-10.71%	-11.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.43%	3.11%	+2.32%

Volatility

IWF vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a higher volatility of 6.46% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 3.81%. This indicates that IWF'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.

Volatility by Period

	IWF	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.46%	3.81%	+2.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.05%	14.11%	-0.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.48%	19.41%	-1.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.71%	22.48%	-0.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.10%	23.01%	-1.91%

IWF vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWF has a 0.18% 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

IWF vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%, less than IWM's 0.91% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	0.37%	0.36%	0.46%	0.67%	0.91%	0.49%	0.66%	0.99%	1.27%	1.10%	1.43%	1.37%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	0.91%	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 IWF and IWM in my portfolio?

IWF and IWM have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWF or IWM?

IWF has higher volatility (6.46%) compared to IWM (3.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, IWF or IWM?

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 17.12% vs 10.59% for IWM. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 3.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWF or IWM?

Over the 10-year period, IWF has performed better with a 17.12% return vs 10.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWF or IWM?

IWF is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

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

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.91%, compared with 0.37% for IWF.

What is the main difference between IWF and IWM?

IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.19% for IWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs 0.41), 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.