PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IWM vs. LDEM

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and LDEM (iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while LDEM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM Extended ESG Leaders 5% Issuer Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWM returned 6.41%/yr vs 2.60%/yr for LDEM. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWM charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for LDEM.

Performance

IWM vs. LDEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM). 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 LDEM's 8.26% 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%

LDEM

1D
2.52%
1M
3.00%
YTD
8.26%
6M
9.66%
1Y
24.07%
3Y*
13.85%
5Y*
2.60%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWM vs. LDEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		20.19%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%19.10%
LDEM
iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF		8.26%32.49%5.87%6.49%-22.46%-2.03%16.30%

Correlation

The correlation between IWM and LDEM is 0.64, 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

0.64

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

0.57

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

0.59

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 12, 2020

0.58

The correlation between IWM and LDEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWM vs. LDEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWM
LDEM

Technology

19.2%
25.9%

Industrials

17.9%
5.5%

Healthcare

16.3%
2.6%

Financial Services

15.4%
24.7%

Consumer Cyclical

7.9%
12.6%

Real Estate

5.9%
1.4%

Energy

5.4%
4.2%

Basic Materials

4.7%
6.4%

Utilities

2.7%
1.9%

Communication Services

2.5%
10.6%

Consumer Defensive

2.2%
2.9%

Technology

IWM
19.2%
LDEM
25.9%

Industrials

IWM
17.9%
LDEM
5.5%

Healthcare

IWM
16.3%
LDEM
2.6%

Financial Services

IWM
15.4%
LDEM
24.7%

Consumer Cyclical

IWM
7.9%
LDEM
12.6%

Real Estate

IWM
5.9%
LDEM
1.4%

Energy

IWM
5.4%
LDEM
4.2%

Basic Materials

IWM
4.7%
LDEM
6.4%

Utilities

IWM
2.7%
LDEM
1.9%

Communication Services

IWM
2.5%
LDEM
10.6%

Consumer Defensive

IWM
2.2%
LDEM
2.9%

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 ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF

Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA
Often compared with LDEM:
LDEM vs. EMXFLDEM vs. DIVISLAB.NSLDEM vs. EEMLDEM vs. ESGELDEM vs. FNDELDEM vs. EIMI.LLDEM vs. IEMG

Return for Risk

IWM vs. LDEM — 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
LDEM
LDEM Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
LDEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LDEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 3737
Sortino Ratio Rank
LDEM Omega Ratio Rank: 4040
Omega Ratio Rank
LDEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
LDEM Martin Ratio Rank: 3939
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. LDEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM). 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.

IWMLDEMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.20
1.28

+0.92

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.99
1.81

+1.17

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.25

+0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.91

1.83

+2.08

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.84

5.76

+8.07

IWM vs. LDEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWM Sharpe Ratio is 2.20, which is higher than the LDEM Sharpe Ratio of 1.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWM and LDEM, 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. LDEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, which is greater than LDEM's maximum drawdown of -40.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and LDEM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWMLDEMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-59.05%

-40.82%

-18.23%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.03%

-13.21%

+2.18%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.50%

-15.12%

-12.38%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.91%

-39.17%

+7.26%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.13%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-2.72%

+2.72%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.75%

-17.30%

+6.55%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.11%

4.19%

-1.08%

Volatility

IWM vs. LDEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is 7.17%, while iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM) has a volatility of 8.65%. This indicates that IWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LDEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWMLDEMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.17%

8.65%

-1.48%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.27%

15.64%

-1.37%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.67%

18.96%

+0.71%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.62%

19.34%

+3.28%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.09%

20.87%

+2.22%

IWM vs. LDEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWM has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than LDEM's 0.16% 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. LDEM - Dividend Comparison

IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.10%, less than LDEM's 3.83% 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%
LDEM
iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF		3.83%3.26%2.64%3.20%4.93%1.82%1.89%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

IWM and LDEM have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

LDEM has higher volatility (8.65%) compared to IWM (7.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWM dropped -59.05% vs LDEM's -40.82%.

On 5-year performance, IWM leads with 6.41% vs 2.60% for LDEM. On fees, LDEM is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 7.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, IWM has performed better with a 6.41% return vs 2.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

LDEM is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

LDEM has the higher dividend yield at 3.83%, compared with 1.10% for IWM.

IWM is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while LDEM is Emerging Markets Equities. IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index, while LDEM tracks MSCI EM Extended ESG Leaders 5% Issuer Capped Index. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWM and 0.16% for LDEM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs 1.28), 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 LDEM

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