IWF vs. IWM
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM).
IWF and IWM are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. IWF is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell 1000 Growth Index. It was launched on May 22, 2000. IWM is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell 2000 Index. It was launched on May 22, 2000. Both IWF and IWM are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: IWF or IWM.
Correlation
The correlation between IWF and IWM is 0.81, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
IWF vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Key characteristics
IWF:
1.96
IWM:
0.98
IWF:
2.56
IWM:
1.48
IWF:
1.35
IWM:
1.18
IWF:
2.61
IWM:
1.08
IWF:
9.94
IWM:
4.88
IWF:
3.49%
IWM:
4.18%
IWF:
17.67%
IWM:
20.71%
IWF:
-64.18%
IWM:
-59.05%
IWF:
-2.76%
IWM:
-6.71%
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 1.34% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 2.04% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has outperformed IWM with an annualized return of 16.85%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively lower 8.34% annualized return.
IWF
1.34%
0.99%
12.80%
31.00%
18.00%
16.85%
IWM
2.04%
2.55%
4.64%
18.54%
7.32%
8.34%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
IWF vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both IWF and IWM have an expense ratio of 0.19%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
IWF vs. IWM — Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank
IWF
IWM
IWF vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Performance 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.
Dividends
IWF vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.45%, less than IWM's 1.12% yield.
| TTM | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 0.45% | 0.46% | 0.67% | 0.91% | 0.50% | 0.66% | 0.99% | 1.27% | 1.10% | 1.43% | 1.37% | 1.33% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 1.12% | 1.15% | 1.35% | 1.48% | 0.94% | 1.04% | 1.26% | 1.40% | 1.26% | 1.38% | 1.54% | 1.26% |
Drawdowns
IWF vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.18%, 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. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
IWF vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) have volatilities of 6.34% and 6.50%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.