IWM vs. CSHI
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and CSHI (NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while CSHI is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Neos. IWM is passively managed, while CSHI is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, IWM returned 16.64%/yr vs 5.40%/yr for CSHI. At a 0.26 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWM charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for CSHI.
Performance
IWM vs. CSHI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWM achieves a 15.62% return, which is significantly higher than CSHI's 2.22% 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%
CSHI
- 1D
- 0.12%
- 1M
- 0.23%
- YTD
- 2.22%
- 6M
- 2.51%
- 1Y
- 5.13%
- 3Y*
- 5.40%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWM vs. CSHI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 15.62% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -4.63% |
CSHI NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF | 2.22% | 5.05% | 5.66% | 6.21% | 1.46% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWM and CSHI is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 31, 2022 | 0.26 |
IWM vs. CSHI - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IWM
CSHI
Technology
Industrials
Healthcare
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Energy
Real Estate
Basic Materials
Utilities
Consumer Defensive
Communication Services
Technology
IWM
CSHI
Industrials
IWM
CSHI
Healthcare
IWM
CSHI
Financial Services
IWM
CSHI
Consumer Cyclical
IWM
CSHI
Energy
IWM
CSHI
Real Estate
IWM
CSHI
Basic Materials
IWM
CSHI
Utilities
IWM
CSHI
Consumer Defensive
IWM
CSHI
Communication Services
IWM
CSHI
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. CSHI — Risk / Return Rank
IWM
CSHI
IWM vs. CSHI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CSHI). 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 | CSHI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.97 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -7.97 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 2.61 | -1.30 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.24 | 25.71 | -22.48 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.44 | 141.38 | -129.95 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IWM | CSHI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.83 | 5.80 | -3.97 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.24 | — | — |
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 | 4.15 | -3.79 |
Drawdowns
IWM vs. CSHI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, which is greater than CSHI's maximum drawdown of -1.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and CSHI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWM | CSHI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.05% | -1.69% | -57.36% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.03% | -0.20% | -10.83% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.50% | -1.69% | -25.81% |
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 | -2.71% | -0.08% | -2.63% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.76% | -0.03% | -10.73% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.11% | 0.04% | +3.07% |
Volatility
IWM vs. CSHI - Volatility Comparison
iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a higher volatility of 6.52% compared to NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CSHI) at 0.27%. This indicates that IWM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWM | CSHI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.52% | 0.27% | +6.25% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.00% | 0.57% | +13.43% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.53% | 0.89% | +18.64% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.58% | 1.33% | +21.25% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.07% | 1.33% | +21.74% |
IWM vs. CSHI - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWM has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than CSHI's 0.38% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWM vs. CSHI - Dividend Comparison
IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, less than CSHI's 4.91% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSHI NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF | 4.91% | 5.11% | 5.72% | 6.15% | 1.52% | 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
IWM and CSHI have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWM has higher volatility (6.52%) compared to CSHI (0.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWM dropped -59.05% vs CSHI's -1.69%.
On 3-year performance, IWM leads with 16.64% vs 5.40% for CSHI. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, CSHI has been the lower-risk option at 0.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, IWM has performed better with a 16.64% return vs 5.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.38% for CSHI.
CSHI has the higher dividend yield at 4.91%, compared with 0.89% for IWM.
IWM is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while CSHI is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWM and 0.38% for CSHI.
CSHI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.80 vs 1.83), 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.
Find the right allocation for IWM and CSHI
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