IWM vs. 3191.HK

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and 3191.HK (Global X China Semiconductor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while 3191.HK is a China Equities fund tracking the Factset China Semiconductor Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWM returned 5.48%/yr vs 9.82%/yr for 3191.HK. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWM charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for 3191.HK.

Performance

IWM vs. 3191.HK - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Global X China Semiconductor ETF (3191.HK). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

IWM is traded in USD, while 3191.HK is traded in HKD. To make them comparable, the 3191.HK values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWM achieves a 15.62% return, which is significantly lower than 3191.HK's 58.16% return.

IWM

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: -0.02%
• YTD: 15.62%
• 6M: 13.83%
• 1Y: 35.52%
• 3Y*: 16.64%
• 5Y*: 5.48%
• 10Y*: 10.78%

3191.HK

• 1D: 1.30%
• 1M: 16.98%
• YTD: 58.16%
• 6M: 61.34%
• 1Y: 127.96%
• 3Y*: 31.08%
• 5Y*: 9.82%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWM vs. 3191.HK - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	15.62%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	-20.48%	14.54%	28.42%
3191.HK Global X China Semiconductor ETF	58.16%	40.84%	11.71%	-6.55%	-39.35%	18.64%	-1.25%

Correlation

The correlation between IWM and 3191.HK is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.15
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.15
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 7, 2020	0.10

Return for Risk

IWM vs. 3191.HK — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 63
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 54
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 68

3191.HK

3191.HK Risk / Return Rank: 88
3191.HK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
3191.HK Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
3191.HK Omega Ratio Rank: 83
3191.HK Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
3191.HK Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

IWM vs. 3191.HK - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Global X China Semiconductor ETF (3191.HK). 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.

	IWM	3191.HK	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.83	3.49	-1.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.54	3.89	-1.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.50	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.24	6.23	-2.99
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.44	15.99	-4.55
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWM vs. 3191.HK - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWM Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is lower than the 3191.HK Sharpe Ratio of 3.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWM and 3191.HK, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IWM	3191.HK	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.83	3.49	-1.66
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.24	0.25	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.47	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.36	0.23	+0.13

Drawdowns

IWM vs. 3191.HK - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, smaller than the maximum 3191.HK drawdown of -63.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and 3191.HK.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWM	3191.HK	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.05%	-63.99%	+4.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.03%	-21.85%	+10.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.50%	-40.95%	+13.45%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.91%	-63.99%	+32.08%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.13%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.71%	-5.69%	+2.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.76%	-34.07%	+23.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.11%	8.41%	-5.30%

Volatility

IWM vs. 3191.HK - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is 6.52%, while Global X China Semiconductor ETF (3191.HK) has a volatility of 16.63%. This indicates that IWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than 3191.HK based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWM	3191.HK	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.52%	16.63%	-10.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.00%	29.10%	-15.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.53%	38.99%	-19.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.58%	40.19%	-17.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.07%	39.53%	-16.46%

IWM vs. 3191.HK - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWM has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than 3191.HK's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWM vs. 3191.HK - Dividend Comparison

IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, while 3191.HK has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
3191.HK Global X China Semiconductor ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
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

Can I hold both IWM and 3191.HK in my portfolio?

IWM and 3191.HK have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, IWM or 3191.HK?

On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWM or 3191.HK?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for 3191.HK.

What is the main difference between IWM and 3191.HK?

IWM is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while 3191.HK is China Equities. IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index, while 3191.HK tracks Factset China Semiconductor Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWM and 0.68% for 3191.HK.