IWM vs. RB
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) and RB (ProShares Russell 2000 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index, while RB is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the Russell 2000. Both are passively managed. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWM charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for RB.
Performance
IWM vs. RB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWM achieves a 20.47% return, which is significantly higher than RB's 8.33% return.
IWM
- 1D
- -0.96%
- 1M
- 3.82%
- YTD
- 20.47%
- 6M
- 17.64%
- 1Y
- 40.90%
- 3Y*
- 19.22%
- 5Y*
- 6.27%
- 10Y*
- 11.58%
RB
- 1D
- -0.14%
- 1M
- 1.83%
- YTD
- 8.33%
- 6M
- 8.01%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWM vs. RB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 20.47% | 16.85% |
RB ProShares Russell 2000 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF | 8.33% | 10.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWM and RB is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025 | 0.82 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
IWM vs. RB — Risk / Return Rank
IWM
RB
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IWM vs. RB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and ProShares Russell 2000 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF (RB). 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.
| IWM | RB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.73 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.18 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWM vs. RB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWM drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, which is greater than RB's maximum drawdown of -2.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWM and RB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWM | RB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.05% | -2.09% | -56.96% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.03% | — | — |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.96% | -0.14% | -0.82% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.75% | -0.43% | -10.32% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.11% | — | — |
Volatility
IWM vs. RB - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWM | RB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.56% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.31% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.74% | 6.55% | +13.19% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.61% | 6.55% | +16.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.06% | 6.55% | +16.51% |
IWM vs. RB - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWM has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than RB's 0.58% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWM vs. RB - Dividend Comparison
IWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%, less than RB's 1.97% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 0.90% | 1.04% | 1.15% | 1.35% | 1.48% | 0.94% | 1.04% | 1.26% | 1.40% | 1.26% | 1.38% | 1.54% |
RB ProShares Russell 2000 Dynamic Daily Buffer ETF | 1.97% | 1.78% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWM and RB have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for RB.
RB has the higher dividend yield at 1.97%, compared with 0.90% for IWM.
IWM is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while RB is Defined Outcome. IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index, while RB tracks Russell 2000. They also come from different issuers: iShares and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWM and 0.58% for RB.
Find the right allocation for IWM and RB
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