PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IWM vs. LCTU

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and LCTU (BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while LCTU is a ESG fund actively managed by BlackRock. IWM is passively managed, while LCTU is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWM returned 6.41%/yr vs 12.39%/yr for LCTU. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWM charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for LCTU.

Performance

IWM vs. LCTU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU). 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 20.19% return, which is significantly higher than LCTU's 9.23% return.

IWM

1D
0.82%
1M
6.39%
YTD
20.19%
6M
17.83%
1Y
42.91%
3Y*
17.97%
5Y*
6.41%
10Y*
11.40%

LCTU

1D
1.73%
1M
2.67%
YTD
9.23%
6M
9.49%
1Y
25.98%
3Y*
19.96%
5Y*
12.39%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWM vs. LCTU - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		20.19%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%1.56%
LCTU
BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF		9.23%16.96%24.00%25.38%-20.02%17.74%

Correlation

The correlation between IWM and LCTU is 0.81, 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

0.81

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

0.80

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

0.84

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2021

0.83

The correlation between IWM and LCTU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWM vs. LCTU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWM
LCTU

Technology

19.2%
37.8%

Industrials

17.9%
8.3%

Healthcare

16.3%
8.6%

Financial Services

15.4%
11.3%

Consumer Cyclical

7.9%
10.3%

Real Estate

5.9%
2.2%

Energy

5.4%
3.0%

Basic Materials

4.7%
1.9%

Utilities

2.7%
2.3%

Communication Services

2.5%
9.9%

Consumer Defensive

2.2%
4.5%

Technology

IWM
19.2%
LCTU
37.8%

Industrials

IWM
17.9%
LCTU
8.3%

Healthcare

IWM
16.3%
LCTU
8.6%

Financial Services

IWM
15.4%
LCTU
11.3%

Consumer Cyclical

IWM
7.9%
LCTU
10.3%

Real Estate

IWM
5.9%
LCTU
2.2%

Energy

IWM
5.4%
LCTU
3.0%

Basic Materials

IWM
4.7%
LCTU
1.9%

Utilities

IWM
2.7%
LCTU
2.3%

Communication Services

IWM
2.5%
LCTU
9.9%

Consumer Defensive

IWM
2.2%
LCTU
4.5%

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

BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF

Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA
Often compared with LCTU:
LCTU vs. LCTDLCTU vs. SPYLCTU vs. BSJOLCTU vs. IVVLCTU vs. QQQLCTU vs. SCHDLCTU vs. VONG

Return for Risk

IWM vs. LCTU — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7575
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
LCTU
LCTU Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
LCTU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LCTU Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
LCTU Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
LCTU Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
LCTU Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
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. LCTU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU). 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.

IWMLCTUDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.20
2.05

+0.15

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.99
2.80

+0.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.37

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.91

2.78

+1.13

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.84

12.10

+1.74

IWM vs. LCTU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWM Sharpe Ratio is 2.20, which is comparable to the LCTU Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWM and LCTU, 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. LCTU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, which is greater than LCTU's maximum drawdown of -25.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and LCTU.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWMLCTUDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-59.05%

-25.93%

-33.12%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.03%

-9.38%

-1.65%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.50%

-19.83%

-7.67%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.91%

-25.93%

-5.98%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.13%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.57%

+0.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.75%

-6.29%

-4.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.11%

2.15%

+0.96%

Volatility

IWM vs. LCTU - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a higher volatility of 7.17% compared to BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) at 4.49%. This indicates that IWM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LCTU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWMLCTUDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.17%

4.49%

+2.68%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.27%

10.05%

+4.22%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.67%

12.76%

+6.91%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.62%

17.23%

+5.39%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.09%

17.04%

+6.05%

IWM vs. LCTU - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWM has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than LCTU's 0.15% 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. LCTU - Dividend Comparison

IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.10%, less than LCTU's 1.15% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		1.10%1.04%1.15%1.35%1.48%0.94%1.04%1.26%1.40%1.26%1.38%1.54%
LCTU
BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF		1.15%1.02%1.27%1.46%1.63%2.20%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

IWM and LCTU have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWM has higher volatility (7.17%) compared to LCTU (4.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWM dropped -59.05% vs LCTU's -25.93%.

On 5-year performance, LCTU leads with 12.39% vs 6.41% for IWM. On fees, LCTU is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, LCTU has been the lower-risk option at 4.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, LCTU has performed better with a 12.39% return vs 6.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

LCTU is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

LCTU has the higher dividend yield at 1.15%, compared with 1.10% for IWM.

IWM is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while LCTU is ESG. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BlackRock. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWM and 0.15% for LCTU.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs 2.05), 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 LCTU

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