PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IWM vs. IWMW

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and IWMW (iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while IWMW is a Derivative Income fund tracking the Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IWM returned 41.60% vs 25.30% for IWMW. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWM charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IWMW.

Performance

IWM vs. IWMW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW). 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 18.84% return, which is significantly higher than IWMW's 9.09% return.

IWM

1D
1.51%
1M
3.34%
YTD
18.84%
6M
16.56%
1Y
41.60%
3Y*
19.00%
5Y*
6.43%
10Y*
10.97%

IWMW

1D
0.55%
1M
2.91%
YTD
9.09%
6M
9.30%
1Y
25.30%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWM vs. IWMW - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		18.84%12.66%10.45%
IWMW
iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF		9.09%7.82%6.09%

Correlation

The correlation between IWM and IWMW is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

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

0.90

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2024

0.91

The correlation between IWM and IWMW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWM vs. IWMW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWM
IWMW

Technology

19.5%
19.2%

Industrials

17.1%
17.6%

Financial Services

15.8%
16.0%

Healthcare

15.8%
16.6%

Consumer Cyclical

7.8%
7.8%

Energy

6.0%
6.4%

Real Estate

5.7%
5.8%

Basic Materials

4.5%
4.8%

Utilities

3.0%
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

2.1%
2.2%

Communication Services

2.0%
2.0%

Technology

IWM
19.5%
IWMW
19.2%

Industrials

IWM
17.1%
IWMW
17.6%

Financial Services

IWM
15.8%
IWMW
16.0%

Healthcare

IWM
15.8%
IWMW
16.6%

Consumer Cyclical

IWM
7.8%
IWMW
7.8%

Energy

IWM
6.0%
IWMW
6.4%

Real Estate

IWM
5.7%
IWMW
5.8%

Basic Materials

IWM
4.5%
IWMW
4.8%

Utilities

IWM
3.0%
IWMW
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

IWM
2.1%
IWMW
2.2%

Communication Services

IWM
2.0%
IWMW
2.0%

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 Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF

Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. IWO
Often compared with IWMW:
IWMW vs. SCHDIWMW vs. IVVWIWMW vs. QQQIIWMW vs. IWMLIWMW vs. SPYIWMW vs. VOOIWMW vs. IWMI

Return for Risk

IWM vs. IWMW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 5959
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank
IWMW
IWMW Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
IWMW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWMW Sortino Ratio Rank: 6161
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWMW Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
IWMW Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWMW Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
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. IWMW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW). 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.

IWMIWMWDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.18
2.07

+0.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.00
2.81

+0.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.41

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.79

3.66

+0.13

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.45

12.67

+0.78

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. IWMW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWM Sharpe Ratio is 2.18, which is comparable to the IWMW Sharpe Ratio of 2.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWM and IWMW, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

IWMIWMWDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.18

2.07

+0.11

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.29

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.37

0.66

-0.29

Drawdowns

IWM vs. IWMW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, which is greater than IWMW's maximum drawdown of -21.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and IWMW.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWMIWMWDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-59.05%

-21.82%

-37.23%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.03%

-6.94%

-4.09%

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

-0.01%

0.00%

-0.01%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.77%

-3.84%

-6.93%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.10%

2.00%

+1.10%

Volatility

IWM vs. IWMW - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a higher volatility of 5.70% compared to iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF (IWMW) at 3.01%. This indicates that IWM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWMW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWMIWMWDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.70%

3.01%

+2.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.60%

8.76%

+4.84%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.19%

12.29%

+6.90%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.53%

16.11%

+6.42%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.04%

16.11%

+6.93%

IWM vs. IWMW - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWM has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than IWMW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWM vs. IWMW - Dividend Comparison

IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, less than IWMW's 22.28% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
IWMW
iShares Russell 2000 BuyWrite ETF		22.28%20.98%17.73%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

IWM and IWMW have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWM has higher volatility (5.70%) compared to IWMW (3.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWM dropped -59.05% vs IWMW's -21.82%.

On 1-year performance, IWM leads with 41.60% vs 25.30% for IWMW. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWMW has been the lower-risk option at 3.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, IWM has performed better with a 41.60% return vs 25.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for IWMW.

IWMW has the higher dividend yield at 22.28%, compared with 0.87% for IWM.

IWM is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while IWMW is Derivative Income. IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index, while IWMW tracks Cboe FTSE Russell IWM 2% OTM BuyWrite Index. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWM and 0.39% for IWMW.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 vs 2.07), 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 IWMW

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