IWM vs. ION

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while ION is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IWM returned 17.23%/yr vs 17.31%/yr for ION. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWM charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for ION.

Performance

IWM vs. ION - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION). 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 ION's 13.12% return.

IWM

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: 5.53%
• YTD: 19.22%
• 6M: 16.00%
• 1Y: 41.75%
• 3Y*: 17.23%
• 5Y*: 6.07%
• 10Y*: 11.27%

ION

• 1D: 4.15%
• 1M: -8.49%
• YTD: 13.12%
• 6M: 23.38%
• 1Y: 112.30%
• 3Y*: 17.31%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWM vs. ION - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	19.22%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	-6.51%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	13.12%	108.37%	-20.02%	-14.10%	-8.45%

Correlation

The correlation between IWM and ION is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2022	0.49

IWM vs. ION - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWM	ION
Technology	19.2%	-
Industrials	17.9%	1.7%
Healthcare	16.3%	1.7%
Financial Services	15.4%	13.0%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	-
Real Estate	5.9%	2.3%
Energy	5.4%	2.3%
Basic Materials	4.7%	13.7%
Utilities	2.7%	-
Communication Services	2.5%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	-

Return for Risk

IWM vs. ION — 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

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 84
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 78
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
ION Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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. ION - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION). 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	ION	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.99	2.81	-0.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.75	3.09	-0.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.40	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.57	4.74	-1.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.63	15.01	-2.38

IWM vs. ION - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWM Sharpe Ratio is 1.99, which is comparable to the ION Sharpe Ratio of 2.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWM and ION, 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. ION - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, which is greater than ION's maximum drawdown of -52.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and ION.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWM	ION	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.05%	-52.08%	-6.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.03%	-23.30%	+12.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.50%	-46.47%	+18.97%
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%	-14.68%	+14.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.76%	-23.64%	+12.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.12%	7.34%	-4.22%

Volatility

IWM vs. ION - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is 7.16%, while Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) has a volatility of 15.42%. This indicates that IWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ION based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWM	ION	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.16%	15.42%	-8.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.29%	31.74%	-17.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.73%	39.38%	-19.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.61%	31.51%	-8.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.08%	31.51%	-8.43%

IWM vs. ION - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWM has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than ION's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWM vs. ION - Dividend Comparison

IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, less than ION's 1.41% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.41%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%	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 ION in my portfolio?

IWM and ION have a correlation of 0.43, 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 ION?

ION has higher volatility (15.42%) compared to IWM (7.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWM dropped -59.05% vs ION's -52.08%.

Which ETF is better, IWM or ION?

On 3-year performance, ION leads with 17.31% vs 17.23% for IWM. 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 ION?

Over the 3-year period, ION has performed better with a 17.31% return vs 17.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWM or ION?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for ION.

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

ION has the higher dividend yield at 1.41%, compared with 0.87% for IWM.

What is the main difference between IWM and ION?

IWM is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while ION is Lithium & Battery Metals. IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index, while ION tracks S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net. They also come from different issuers: iShares and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWM and 0.58% for ION.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ION currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.81 vs 1.99), 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.