IWN vs. BSMC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IWN (iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF) and BSMC (Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF) are both Small Cap Value Equities funds. IWN is passively managed, while BSMC is actively managed. Over the past year, IWN returned 42.32% vs 23.93% for BSMC. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWN charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for BSMC.

Performance

IWN vs. BSMC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF (IWN) and Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF (BSMC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWN achieves a 20.82% return, which is significantly higher than BSMC's 9.66% return.

IWN

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 3.32%
• YTD: 20.82%
• 6M: 18.59%
• 1Y: 42.32%
• 3Y*: 19.19%
• 5Y*: 7.16%
• 10Y*: 10.72%

BSMC

• 1D: 0.45%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: 9.66%
• 6M: 9.35%
• 1Y: 23.93%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IWN vs. BSMC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
IWN iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF	20.82%	12.40%	7.63%	19.27%
BSMC Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF	9.66%	15.52%	10.21%	11.69%

Correlation

The correlation between IWN and BSMC is 0.84, 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	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 5, 2023	0.89

The correlation between IWN and BSMC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWN vs. BSMC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWN	BSMC
Financial Services	23.9%	9.8%
Industrials	12.1%	19.1%
Technology	11.6%	15.8%
Real Estate	10.2%	-
Healthcare	10.1%	22.1%
Consumer Cyclical	8.9%	6.5%
Energy	7.9%	7.0%
Basic Materials	5.4%	3.7%
Utilities	5.1%	-
Communication Services	2.7%	3.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.1%	12.4%

Return for Risk

IWN vs. BSMC — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWN

IWN Risk / Return Rank: 80
IWN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
IWN Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
IWN Omega Ratio Rank: 71
IWN Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
IWN Martin Ratio Rank: 85

BSMC

BSMC Risk / Return Rank: 54
BSMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
BSMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
BSMC Omega Ratio Rank: 48
BSMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
BSMC Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

IWN vs. BSMC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF (IWN) and Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF (BSMC). 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.

	IWN	BSMC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.36	1.65	+0.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.30	2.44	+0.86
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.28	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.03	2.66	+2.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.92	9.40	+7.52

IWN vs. BSMC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWN Sharpe Ratio is 2.36, which is higher than the BSMC Sharpe Ratio of 1.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWN and BSMC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IWN vs. BSMC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWN drawdown since its inception was -61.55%, which is greater than BSMC's maximum drawdown of -19.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWN and BSMC.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWN	BSMC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-61.55%	-19.15%	-42.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.45%	-9.02%	+0.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.70%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.70%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.08%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.20%	-2.60%	+2.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.14%	-2.65%	-7.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.51%	2.55%	-0.04%

Volatility

IWN vs. BSMC - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF (IWN) has a higher volatility of 5.29% compared to Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF (BSMC) at 3.71%. This indicates that IWN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BSMC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWN	BSMC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.29%	3.71%	+1.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.29%	10.29%	+2.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.04%	14.63%	+3.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.41%	16.06%	+5.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.39%	16.06%	+7.33%

IWN vs. BSMC - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWN has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is lower than BSMC's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWN vs. BSMC - Dividend Comparison

IWN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.46%, more than BSMC's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BSMC Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF	0.95%	1.17%	1.02%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IWN iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF	1.46%	1.70%	1.80%	2.04%	2.12%	1.48%	1.60%	1.92%	1.99%	1.78%	1.74%	2.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWN and BSMC in my portfolio?

IWN and BSMC have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWN or BSMC?

IWN has higher volatility (5.29%) compared to BSMC (3.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWN dropped -61.55% vs BSMC's -19.15%.

Which ETF is better, IWN or BSMC?

On 1-year performance, IWN leads with 42.32% vs 23.93% for BSMC. On fees, IWN is cheaper at 0.24% per year. On volatility, BSMC has been the lower-risk option at 3.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWN or BSMC?

Over the 1-year period, IWN has performed better with a 42.32% return vs 23.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWN or BSMC?

IWN is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for BSMC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWN or BSMC?

IWN has the higher dividend yield at 1.46%, compared with 0.95% for BSMC.

What is the main difference between IWN and BSMC?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Brandes. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for IWN and 0.70% for BSMC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 1.65), 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.