IWM vs. AFSC

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. IWM is passively managed, while AFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, IWM returned 44.01% vs 38.50% for AFSC. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWM charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for AFSC.

Performance

IWM vs. AFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWM achieves a 21.64% return, which is significantly lower than AFSC's 26.03% return.

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%

AFSC

• 1D: 0.38%
• 1M: 8.13%
• YTD: 26.03%
• 6M: 20.70%
• 1Y: 38.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWM vs. AFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	21.64%	10.16%
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	26.03%	2.33%

Correlation

The correlation between IWM and AFSC is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 18, 2025	0.91

The correlation between IWM and AFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IWM vs. AFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 72
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 63
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 76

AFSC

AFSC Risk / Return Rank: 67
AFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
AFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
AFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 56
AFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
AFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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. AFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC). 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.

	IWM	AFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.24	2.04	+0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.05	2.84	+0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.34	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.01	3.76	+0.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.19	14.29	-0.10

IWM vs. AFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWM Sharpe Ratio is 2.24, which is comparable to the AFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWM and AFSC, 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

IWM vs. AFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, which is greater than AFSC's maximum drawdown of -21.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and AFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWM	AFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.05%	-21.93%	-37.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.03%	-10.29%	-0.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.50%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.91%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.13%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.75%	-4.13%	-6.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.11%	2.70%	+0.41%

Volatility

IWM vs. AFSC - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a higher volatility of 6.47% compared to abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) at 5.19%. This indicates that IWM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AFSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWM	AFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.47%	5.19%	+1.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.28%	14.53%	-0.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.75%	19.00%	+0.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.60%	22.52%	+0.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.09%	22.52%	+0.57%

IWM vs. AFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWM has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than AFSC's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWM vs. AFSC - Dividend Comparison

IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, more than AFSC's 0.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	0.06%	0.08%	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 AFSC in my portfolio?

IWM and AFSC have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWM or AFSC?

IWM has higher volatility (6.47%) compared to AFSC (5.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWM dropped -59.05% vs AFSC's -21.93%.

Which ETF is better, IWM or AFSC?

On 1-year performance, IWM leads with 44.01% vs 38.50% for AFSC. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, AFSC has been the lower-risk option at 5.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWM or AFSC?

Over the 1-year period, IWM has performed better with a 44.01% return vs 38.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWM or AFSC?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.

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

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.89%, compared with 0.06% for AFSC.

What is the main difference between IWM and AFSC?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWM and 0.65% for AFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 2.04), 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.