IWM vs. HG=F

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) is Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while HG=F (Copper) is an asset. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

IWM vs. HG=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Copper (HG=F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

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%

HG=F

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWM vs. HG=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	15.62%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	-12.10%
HG=F Copper	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.20%

Correlation

The correlation between IWM and HG=F is 0.05, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2022	0.05

Return for Risk

IWM vs. HG=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 63
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 54
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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. HG=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Copper (HG=F). 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	HG=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.83	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.54	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.24	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.44	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IWM	HG=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.83	—	—
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	—	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	IWM	HG=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.05%	—	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.03%	—	—
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	-2.71%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.76%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.11%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	IWM	HG=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.52%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.00%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.53%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.58%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.07%	—	—

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWM and HG=F in my portfolio?

IWM and HG=F have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.