IWM vs. FANG
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) is Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while FANG (Diamondback Energy, Inc.) is a stock. Over the past 10 years, IWM returned 10.78%/yr vs 11.24%/yr for FANG. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
IWM vs. FANG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWM achieves a 15.62% return, which is significantly lower than FANG's 33.36% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IWM having a 10.78% annualized return and FANG not far ahead at 11.24%.
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%
FANG
- 1D
- 2.89%
- 1M
- 5.61%
- YTD
- 33.36%
- 6M
- 27.27%
- 1Y
- 44.64%
- 3Y*
- 18.70%
- 5Y*
- 22.65%
- 10Y*
- 11.24%
IWM vs. FANG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 15.62% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | 14.54% | 20.03% | 25.39% | -11.12% | 14.58% |
FANG Diamondback Energy, Inc. | 33.36% | -5.64% | 10.35% | 19.66% | 35.34% | 127.51% | -46.00% | 0.92% | -26.35% | 24.93% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWM and FANG is -0.00, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.00 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.37 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.44 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 15, 2012 | 0.43 |
The correlation between IWM and FANG shifts across timeframes, from -0.00 (1 year) to 0.44 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. FANG — Risk / Return Rank
IWM
FANG
IWM vs. FANG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG). 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 | FANG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.40 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.57 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.24 | +0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.24 | 3.58 | -0.34 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.44 | 7.07 | +4.36 |
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 | FANG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.83 | 1.43 | +0.40 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.24 | 0.60 | -0.36 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.47 | 0.23 | +0.24 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.36 | 0.47 | -0.10 |
Drawdowns
IWM vs. FANG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, smaller than the maximum FANG drawdown of -88.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and FANG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWM | FANG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.05% | -88.72% | +29.67% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.03% | -12.53% | +1.50% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.50% | -42.10% | +14.60% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -31.91% | -42.10% | +10.19% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -41.13% | -88.72% | +47.59% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.71% | -6.74% | +4.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.76% | -19.39% | +8.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.11% | 6.33% | -3.22% |
Volatility
IWM vs. FANG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is 6.52%, while Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG) has a volatility of 11.35%. This indicates that IWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FANG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWM | FANG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.52% | 11.35% | -4.83% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.00% | 23.88% | -9.88% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.53% | 31.51% | -11.98% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.58% | 37.98% | -15.40% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.07% | 49.06% | -25.99% |
Dividends
IWM vs. FANG - Dividend Comparison
IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, less than FANG's 2.09% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FANG Diamondback Energy, Inc. | 2.09% | 2.66% | 5.06% | 5.15% | 6.55% | 1.62% | 3.10% | 0.74% | 0.40% | 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 FANG have a correlation of -0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FANG has higher volatility (11.35%) compared to IWM (6.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWM dropped -59.05% vs FANG's -88.72%.
IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs 1.43), 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 FANG
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