IWM vs. IWF
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF).
IWM and IWF are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. IWM is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell 2000 Index. It was launched on May 22, 2000. IWF is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell 1000 Growth Index. It was launched on May 22, 2000. Both IWM and IWF are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: IWM or IWF.
Key characteristics
| IWM | IWF | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | -0.92% | 8.33% |
| 1Y Return | 15.78% | 34.77% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -3.35% | 8.61% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 6.01% | 16.58% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 7.40% | 15.52% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.88 | 2.49 |
| Daily Std Dev | 19.75% | 15.04% |
| Max Drawdown | -59.05% | -64.18% |
| Current Drawdown | -15.33% | -3.25% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWM and IWF is 0.82, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
IWM vs. IWF - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, IWM achieves a -0.92% return, which is significantly lower than IWF's 8.33% return. Over the past 10 years, IWM has underperformed IWF with an annualized return of 7.40%, while IWF has yielded a comparatively higher 15.52% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
IWM vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both IWM and IWF have an expense ratio of 0.19%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
IWM vs. IWF - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). 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.
Dividends
IWM vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison
IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, more than IWF's 0.60% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 1.31% | 1.35% | 1.48% | 0.94% | 1.04% | 1.26% | 1.40% | 1.26% | 1.38% | 1.54% | 1.26% | 1.23% |
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 0.60% | 0.67% | 0.91% | 0.49% | 0.66% | 0.99% | 1.27% | 1.10% | 1.43% | 1.37% | 1.32% | 1.29% |
Drawdowns
IWM vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, smaller than the maximum IWF drawdown of -64.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and IWF. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
IWM vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison
iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) have volatilities of 5.10% and 4.99%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.