PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IWM vs. IEFA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IWM vs. IEFA

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and IEFA (iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while IEFA is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE IMI Index (Net). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWM returned 11.27%/yr vs 9.90%/yr for IEFA. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWM charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IEFA.

Performance

IWM vs. IEFA - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWM achieves a 19.22% return, which is significantly higher than IEFA's 9.51% return. Over the past 10 years, IWM has outperformed IEFA with an annualized return of 11.27%, while IEFA has yielded a comparatively lower 9.90% annualized 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%

IEFA

1D
0.18%
1M
0.85%
YTD
9.51%
6M
11.08%
1Y
20.89%
3Y*
16.31%
5Y*
8.10%
10Y*
9.90%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWM vs. IEFA - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		19.22%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%
IEFA
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF		9.51%32.08%3.26%17.95%-15.24%11.63%8.18%22.64%-14.14%26.57%

Correlation

The correlation between IWM and IEFA is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.72

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.70

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.73

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.72

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2012

0.72

The correlation between IWM and IEFA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWM vs. IEFA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWM
IEFA

Technology

19.5%
10.8%

Industrials

17.2%
20.1%

Healthcare

16.1%
9.5%

Financial Services

15.6%
22.5%

Consumer Cyclical

7.9%
8.0%

Energy

5.8%
3.8%

Real Estate

5.6%
3.0%

Basic Materials

4.5%
7.0%

Utilities

3.0%
3.6%

Consumer Defensive

2.1%
6.6%

Communication Services

2.1%
4.4%

Technology

IWM
19.5%
IEFA
10.8%

Industrials

IWM
17.2%
IEFA
20.1%

Healthcare

IWM
16.1%
IEFA
9.5%

Financial Services

IWM
15.6%
IEFA
22.5%

Consumer Cyclical

IWM
7.9%
IEFA
8.0%

Energy

IWM
5.8%
IEFA
3.8%

Real Estate

IWM
5.6%
IEFA
3.0%

Basic Materials

IWM
4.5%
IEFA
7.0%

Utilities

IWM
3.0%
IEFA
3.6%

Consumer Defensive

IWM
2.1%
IEFA
6.6%

Communication Services

IWM
2.1%
IEFA
4.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF

Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA
Often compared with IEFA:
IEFA vs. VEAIEFA vs. VXUSIEFA vs. EFAIEFA vs. FSPSXIEFA vs. IEMGIEFA vs. XEF.TOIEFA vs. IXUS

Return for Risk

IWM vs. IEFA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
Martin Ratio Rank
IEFA
IEFA Risk / Return Rank: 4444
Overall Rank
IEFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 4444
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEFA Omega Ratio Rank: 4343
Omega Ratio Rank
IEFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 4242
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEFA Martin Ratio Rank: 4848
Martin Ratio Rank
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. IEFA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA). 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.

IWMIEFADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.99
1.35

+0.64

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.75
1.97

+0.78

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.25

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.57

1.83

+1.74

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.63

6.93

+5.69

IWM vs. IEFA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWM Sharpe Ratio is 1.99, which is higher than the IEFA Sharpe Ratio of 1.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWM and IEFA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

IWM vs. IEFA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, which is greater than IEFA's maximum drawdown of -34.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and IEFA.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWMIEFADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-59.05%

-34.78%

-24.27%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.03%

-11.50%

+0.47%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.50%

-13.76%

-13.74%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.91%

-30.41%

-1.50%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.13%

-34.78%

-6.35%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.60%

+0.60%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.76%

-6.68%

-4.08%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.12%

3.03%

+0.09%

Volatility

IWM vs. IEFA - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a higher volatility of 7.16% compared to iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) at 5.50%. This indicates that IWM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IEFA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWMIEFADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.16%

5.50%

+1.66%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.29%

13.11%

+1.18%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.73%

15.54%

+4.19%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.61%

16.61%

+6.00%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.08%

17.31%

+5.77%

IWM vs. IEFA - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWM has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than IEFA's 0.07% expense ratio. However, 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. IEFA - Dividend Comparison

IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, less than IEFA's 3.24% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IEFA
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF		3.24%3.55%3.47%3.20%2.70%3.32%1.90%3.18%3.46%2.57%2.96%2.63%
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

IWM and IEFA have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWM has higher volatility (7.16%) compared to IEFA (5.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWM dropped -59.05% vs IEFA's -34.78%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 11.27% vs 9.90% for IEFA. On fees, IEFA is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, IEFA has been the lower-risk option at 5.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWM has performed better with a 11.27% return vs 9.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IEFA is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

IEFA has the higher dividend yield at 3.24%, compared with 0.87% for IWM.

IWM is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while IEFA is Foreign Large Cap Equities. IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index, while IEFA tracks MSCI EAFE IMI Index (Net). Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWM and 0.07% for IEFA.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 1.35), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IWM and IEFA

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