IWM vs. FBTC

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and FBTC (Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while FBTC is a Cryptocurrency fund tracking the Fidelity Bitcoin Reference Rate. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IWM returned 39.16% vs -40.63% for FBTC. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWM charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FBTC.

Performance

IWM vs. FBTC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWM achieves a 19.22% return, which is significantly higher than FBTC's -27.39% return.

IWM

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: 3.64%
• YTD: 19.22%
• 6M: 16.00%
• 1Y: 39.16%
• 3Y*: 17.23%
• 5Y*: 6.07%
• 10Y*: 11.27%

FBTC

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: -20.13%
• YTD: -27.39%
• 6M: -29.64%
• 1Y: -40.63%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWM vs. FBTC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	19.22%	12.66%	14.60%
FBTC Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund	-27.39%	-6.56%	94.28%

Correlation

The correlation between IWM and FBTC is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.46

Return for Risk

IWM vs. FBTC — 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: 71
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 63
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 76

FBTC

FBTC Risk / Return Rank: 3
FBTC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
FBTC Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
FBTC Omega Ratio Rank: 3
FBTC Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
FBTC Martin Ratio Rank: 2

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. FBTC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC). 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	FBTC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.99	-0.93	+2.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.75	-1.31	+4.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	0.85	+0.47
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.57	-0.78	+4.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.63	-1.37	+14.00

IWM vs. FBTC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWM Sharpe Ratio is 1.99, which is higher than the FBTC Sharpe Ratio of -0.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWM and FBTC, 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. FBTC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, which is greater than FBTC's maximum drawdown of -52.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and FBTC.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWM	FBTC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.05%	-52.07%	-6.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.03%	-52.07%	+41.04%
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%	-49.42%	+49.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.76%	-16.46%	+5.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.12%	29.61%	-26.49%

Volatility

IWM vs. FBTC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is 7.16%, while Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) has a volatility of 11.97%. This indicates that IWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FBTC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWM	FBTC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.16%	11.97%	-4.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.29%	34.39%	-20.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.73%	43.98%	-24.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.61%	50.13%	-27.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.08%	50.13%	-27.05%

IWM vs. FBTC - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWM has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than FBTC's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, 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. FBTC - Dividend Comparison

IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, while FBTC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FBTC Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund	0.00%	0.00%	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	0.87%	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 FBTC in my portfolio?

IWM and FBTC have a correlation of 0.49, 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 FBTC?

FBTC has higher volatility (11.97%) compared to IWM (7.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWM dropped -59.05% vs FBTC's -52.07%.

Which ETF is better, IWM or FBTC?

On 1-year performance, IWM leads with 39.16% vs -40.63% for FBTC. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 7.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWM or FBTC?

Over the 1-year period, IWM has performed better with a 39.16% return vs -40.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWM or FBTC?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for FBTC.

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

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.87%, compared with 0.00% for FBTC.

What is the main difference between IWM and FBTC?

IWM is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while FBTC is Cryptocurrency. IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index, while FBTC tracks Fidelity Bitcoin Reference Rate. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWM and 0.25% for FBTC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs -0.93), 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.