IWM vs. IWF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWM returned 10.93%/yr vs 18.49%/yr for IWF. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.19% expense ratio.

Performance

IWM vs. IWF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWM achieves a 17.07% return, which is significantly higher than IWF's 7.11% return. Over the past 10 years, IWM has underperformed IWF with an annualized return of 10.93%, while IWF has yielded a comparatively higher 18.49% annualized return.

IWM

• 1D: -1.37%
• 1M: 3.52%
• YTD: 17.07%
• 6M: 15.83%
• 1Y: 39.10%
• 3Y*: 17.88%
• 5Y*: 6.11%
• 10Y*: 10.93%

IWF

• 1D: -1.29%
• 1M: 5.68%
• YTD: 7.11%
• 6M: 6.51%
• 1Y: 25.60%
• 3Y*: 24.80%
• 5Y*: 15.24%
• 10Y*: 18.49%

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

IWM vs. IWF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	17.07%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	-20.48%	14.54%	20.03%	25.39%	-11.12%	14.58%
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	7.11%	18.33%	33.12%	42.59%	-29.31%	27.43%	38.25%	35.86%	-1.67%	29.95%

Correlation

The correlation between IWM and IWF is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.62
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 30, 2000	0.80

The correlation between IWM and IWF shifts across timeframes, from 0.62 (3 years) to 0.80 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWM vs. IWF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWM	IWF
Technology	19.5%	53.2%
Industrials	17.1%	5.0%
Financial Services	15.8%	4.9%
Healthcare	15.8%	7.0%
Consumer Cyclical	7.8%	12.7%
Energy	6.0%	0.4%
Real Estate	5.7%	0.4%
Basic Materials	4.5%	0.3%
Utilities	3.0%	1.1%
Consumer Defensive	2.1%	2.5%
Communication Services	2.0%	12.3%

Return for Risk

IWM vs. IWF — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 62
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 53
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 67

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 40
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 44
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 34

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. IWF - Risk-Adjusted Trends 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.

	IWM	IWF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.05	1.67	+0.39
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.85	2.29	+0.57
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.29	+0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.56	1.58	+1.98
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.64	5.28	+7.36
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWM vs. IWF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWM Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is comparable to the IWF Sharpe Ratio of 1.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWM and IWF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IWM	IWF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.05	1.67	+0.39
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.27	0.72	-0.44
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.48	0.88	-0.41
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.37	0.40	-0.03

Drawdowns

IWM vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, smaller than the maximum IWF drawdown of -64.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and IWF.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWM	IWF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.05%	-64.25%	+5.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.03%	-16.27%	+5.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.50%	-23.36%	-4.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.91%	-32.72%	+0.81%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.13%	-32.72%	-8.41%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.49%	-1.66%	+0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.77%	-22.08%	+11.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.10%	4.86%	-1.76%

Volatility

IWM vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a higher volatility of 5.75% compared to iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) at 3.61%. This indicates that IWM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWM	IWF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.75%	3.61%	+2.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.53%	11.66%	+1.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.20%	15.44%	+3.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.52%	21.40%	+1.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.04%	20.97%	+2.07%

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%.

Dividends

IWM vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison

IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.88%, more than IWF's 0.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	0.33%	0.36%	0.46%	0.67%	0.91%	0.49%	0.66%	0.99%	1.27%	1.10%	1.43%	1.37%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	0.88%	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 IWF in my portfolio?

IWM and IWF have a correlation of 0.63, 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 IWF?

IWM has higher volatility (5.75%) compared to IWF (3.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWM dropped -59.05% vs IWF's -64.25%.

Which ETF is better, IWM or IWF?

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.49% vs 10.93% for IWM. Both ETFs have the same 0.19% expense ratio. On volatility, IWF has been the lower-risk option at 3.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWM or IWF?

Over the 10-year period, IWF has performed better with a 18.49% return vs 10.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWM or IWF?

IWM and IWF have the same expense ratio: 0.19% per year.

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

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.88%, compared with 0.33% for IWF.

What is the main difference between IWM and IWF?

IWM is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while IWF is Large Cap Growth Equities. IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index, while IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.67), 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.