IWM vs. ASCE
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and ASCE (Allspring SMID Core ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. IWM is passively managed, while ASCE is actively managed. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWM charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for ASCE.
Performance
IWM vs. ASCE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWM achieves a 20.47% return, which is significantly lower than ASCE's 28.36% return.
IWM
- 1D
- -0.96%
- 1M
- 3.82%
- YTD
- 20.47%
- 6M
- 17.64%
- 1Y
- 40.90%
- 3Y*
- 19.22%
- 5Y*
- 6.27%
- 10Y*
- 11.58%
ASCE
- 1D
- -2.21%
- 1M
- 6.39%
- YTD
- 28.36%
- 6M
- 23.53%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWM vs. ASCE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 20.47% | 12.72% |
ASCE Allspring SMID Core ETF | 28.36% | 8.46% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWM and ASCE 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2025 | 0.90 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
IWM vs. ASCE — Risk / Return Rank
IWM
ASCE
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IWM vs. ASCE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Allspring SMID Core ETF (ASCE). 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 | ASCE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.73 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.18 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWM vs. ASCE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, which is greater than ASCE's maximum drawdown of -9.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and ASCE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWM | ASCE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.05% | -9.22% | -49.83% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.03% | — | — |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.96% | -2.21% | +1.25% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.75% | -2.02% | -8.73% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.11% | — | — |
Volatility
IWM vs. ASCE - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWM | ASCE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.56% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.31% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.74% | 19.77% | -0.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.61% | 19.77% | +2.84% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.06% | 19.77% | +3.29% |
IWM vs. ASCE - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWM has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than ASCE's 0.38% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWM vs. ASCE - Dividend Comparison
IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%, more than ASCE's 0.17% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ASCE Allspring SMID Core ETF | 0.17% | 0.22% | 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 | 0.90% | 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 0.90, IWM and ASCE 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.
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.
IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.38% for ASCE.
IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.90%, compared with 0.17% for ASCE.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and Allspring. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWM and 0.38% for ASCE.
Find the right allocation for IWM and ASCE
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