PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IWM vs. BBSC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IWM vs. BBSC - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWM achieves a 17.07% return, which is significantly higher than BBSC's 15.75% return.


IWM

1D
-1.37%
1M
3.52%
YTD
17.07%
6M
15.83%
1Y
39.10%
3Y*
17.88%
5Y*
6.11%
10Y*
10.93%

BBSC

1D
-1.11%
1M
2.71%
YTD
15.75%
6M
14.20%
1Y
35.98%
3Y*
17.34%
5Y*
6.64%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWM vs. BBSC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
17.07%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%10.21%
BBSC
JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF
15.75%10.38%12.31%20.07%-19.75%15.44%11.94%

Correlation

The correlation between IWM and BBSC is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.99

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.99

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.99

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 18, 2020

0.99

The correlation between IWM and BBSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.99 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWM vs. BBSC - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWM
BBSC

Technology

19.5%
18.5%

Industrials

17.1%
14.9%

Financial Services

15.8%
16.9%

Healthcare

15.8%
15.7%

Consumer Cyclical

7.8%
9.0%

Energy

6.0%
6.4%

Real Estate

5.7%
7.7%

Basic Materials

4.5%
4.1%

Utilities

3.0%
1.2%

Consumer Defensive

2.1%
3.2%

Communication Services

2.0%
2.4%

Technology

IWM
19.5%
BBSC
18.5%

Industrials

IWM
17.1%
BBSC
14.9%

Financial Services

IWM
15.8%
BBSC
16.9%

Healthcare

IWM
15.8%
BBSC
15.7%

Consumer Cyclical

IWM
7.8%
BBSC
9.0%

Energy

IWM
6.0%
BBSC
6.4%

Real Estate

IWM
5.7%
BBSC
7.7%

Basic Materials

IWM
4.5%
BBSC
4.1%

Utilities

IWM
3.0%
BBSC
1.2%

Consumer Defensive

IWM
2.1%
BBSC
3.2%

Communication Services

IWM
2.0%
BBSC
2.4%

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. BBSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank

BBSC
BBSC Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
BBSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BBSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
BBSC Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
BBSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
BBSC Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank
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. BBSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF (BBSC). 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.


IWMBBSCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.16

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.15

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.34

1.32

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.56

3.79

-0.23

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.64

12.35

+0.29

IWM vs. BBSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWM Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is comparable to the BBSC Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWM and BBSC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IWMBBSCDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.05

1.90

+0.16

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.27

0.29

-0.02

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.37

0.49

-0.12

Drawdowns

IWM vs. BBSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, which is greater than BBSC's maximum drawdown of -30.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and BBSC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWMBBSCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-59.05%

-30.96%

-28.09%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.03%

-9.54%

-1.49%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.50%

-29.32%

+1.82%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.91%

-30.96%

-0.95%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.13%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.49%

-1.48%

-0.01%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.77%

-11.49%

+0.72%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.10%

2.92%

+0.18%

Volatility

IWM vs. BBSC - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a higher volatility of 5.75% compared to JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF (BBSC) at 4.91%. This indicates that IWM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BBSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWMBBSCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.75%

4.91%

+0.84%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.53%

12.98%

+0.55%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.20%

19.12%

+0.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.52%

22.93%

-0.41%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.04%

22.86%

+0.18%

IWM vs. BBSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWM has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than BBSC's 0.09% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

IWM vs. BBSC - Dividend Comparison

IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.88%, less than BBSC's 1.03% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BBSC
JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF
1.03%1.13%1.29%1.58%1.37%1.06%0.18%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
0.88%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 0.99, IWM and BBSC 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.

IWM has higher volatility (5.75%) compared to BBSC (4.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWM dropped -59.05% vs BBSC's -30.96%.

On 5-year performance, BBSC leads with 6.64% vs 6.11% for IWM. On fees, BBSC is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, BBSC has been the lower-risk option at 4.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, BBSC has performed better with a 6.64% return vs 6.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BBSC is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

BBSC has the higher dividend yield at 1.03%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.

IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index, while BBSC tracks Morningstar US Small Cap Target Market Exposure Extended Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWM and 0.09% for BBSC.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.90), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IWM and BBSC

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