IWM vs. FSLCX
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and FSLCX (Fidelity Small Cap Stock Fund) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, IWM returned 10.80%/yr vs 10.21%/yr for FSLCX. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWM charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for FSLCX.
Performance
IWM vs. FSLCX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWM achieves a 20.14% return, which is significantly higher than FSLCX's 18.59% return. Over the past 10 years, IWM has outperformed FSLCX with an annualized return of 10.80%, while FSLCX has yielded a comparatively lower 10.21% annualized return.
IWM
- 1D
- 0.35%
- 1M
- 0.77%
- 6M
- 13.16%
- YTD
- 20.14%
- 1Y
- 33.33%
- 3Y*
- 16.79%
- 5Y*
- 7.57%
- 10Y*
- 10.80%
FSLCX
- 1D
- -1.08%
- 1M
- -0.76%
- 6M
- 11.97%
- YTD
- 18.59%
- 1Y
- 27.33%
- 3Y*
- 17.61%
- 5Y*
- 7.68%
- 10Y*
- 10.21%
IWM vs. FSLCX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 20.14% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | 14.54% | 20.03% | 25.39% | -11.12% | 14.58% |
FSLCX Fidelity Small Cap Stock Fund | 18.59% | 14.95% | 9.27% | 19.70% | -22.71% | 20.26% | 13.80% | 29.46% | -11.70% | 13.78% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWM and FSLCX is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.93 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2000 | 0.94 |
The correlation between IWM and FSLCX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.
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. FSLCX — Risk / Return Rank
IWM
FSLCX
IWM vs. FSLCX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Fidelity Small Cap Stock Fund (FSLCX). 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 | FSLCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.27 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.29 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.25 | +0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.04 | 2.26 | +0.78 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.73 | 7.81 | +2.92 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWM vs. FSLCX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, roughly equal to the maximum FSLCX drawdown of -61.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and FSLCX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWM | FSLCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.05% | -61.22% | +2.17% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.03% | -12.51% | +1.48% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.50% | -22.01% | -5.49% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -31.91% | -30.04% | -1.87% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -41.13% | -45.42% | +4.29% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.98% | -4.77% | +2.79% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.73% | -9.79% | -0.94% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.12% | 3.61% | -0.49% |
Volatility
IWM vs. FSLCX - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is 3.88%, while Fidelity Small Cap Stock Fund (FSLCX) has a volatility of 7.15%. This indicates that IWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FSLCX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWM | FSLCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.88% | 7.15% | -3.27% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.18% | 15.43% | -1.25% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.50% | 19.61% | -0.11% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.55% | 21.20% | +1.35% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.00% | 21.26% | +1.74% |
IWM vs. FSLCX - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWM has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than FSLCX's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWM vs. FSLCX - Dividend Comparison
IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%, less than FSLCX's 13.58% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FSLCX Fidelity Small Cap Stock Fund | 13.58% | 14.91% | 1.86% | 0.02% | 7.91% | 22.97% | 0.00% | 0.31% | 26.25% | 8.92% | 3.85% | 10.97% |
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 0.93, IWM and FSLCX 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.
FSLCX has higher volatility (7.15%) compared to IWM (3.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWM dropped -59.05% vs FSLCX's -61.22%.
IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.72 vs 1.44), 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 FSLCX
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