PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IWN vs. IWM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

IWN (iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWN is a Small Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Value Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWN returned 10.28%/yr vs 10.70%/yr for IWM. Their 0.96 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. IWN charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

IWN vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF (IWN) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWN achieves a 22.87% return, which is significantly higher than IWM's 18.79% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IWN having a 10.28% annualized return and IWM not far ahead at 10.70%.

IWN

1D
-0.25%
1M
-0.04%
6M
14.84%
YTD
22.87%
1Y
43.20%
3Y*
15.76%
5Y*
8.77%
10Y*
10.28%
ALL TIME*
9.49%

IWM

1D
-0.48%
1M
-2.14%
6M
12.62%
YTD
18.79%
1Y
36.90%
3Y*
15.11%
5Y*
6.99%
10Y*
10.70%
ALL TIME*
8.73%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

IWM

iShares Russell 2000 ETF
$6.67B$6.32B$7.45B

IWN

iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF
$142.85M$119.46M$143.70M

IWN vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWN
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF		22.87%12.40%7.63%14.56%-14.77%27.96%4.66%22.01%-13.01%7.69%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		18.79%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between IWN and IWM is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.94

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.96

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.97

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.96

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 28, 2000

0.96

The correlation between IWN and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWN vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWN
IWM

Financial Services

28.1%
18.3%

Industrials

12.1%
13.7%

Real Estate

11.4%
7.0%

Healthcare

10.5%
20.0%

Consumer Cyclical

9.6%
9.2%

Technology

6.8%
13.6%

Energy

6.0%
5.6%

Utilities

5.2%
2.9%

Basic Materials

4.2%
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

3.3%
2.8%

Communication Services

2.2%
2.0%

Financial Services

IWN
28.1%
IWM
18.3%

Industrials

IWN
12.1%
IWM
13.7%

Real Estate

IWN
11.4%
IWM
7.0%

Healthcare

IWN
10.5%
IWM
20.0%

Consumer Cyclical

IWN
9.6%
IWM
9.2%

Technology

IWN
6.8%
IWM
13.6%

Energy

IWN
6.0%
IWM
5.6%

Utilities

IWN
5.2%
IWM
2.9%

Basic Materials

IWN
4.2%
IWM
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

IWN
3.3%
IWM
2.8%

Communication Services

IWN
2.2%
IWM
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 Value ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with IWN:
IWN vs. IWOIWN vs. VTWOIWN vs. IJSIWN vs. IWSIWN vs. IWVIWN vs. IWXIWN vs. IWR
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. IWOIWM vs. TNA

Return for Risk

IWN vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
IWN
IWN Risk / Return Rank: 9292
Overall Rank
IWN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWN Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWN Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
IWN Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWN Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IWN vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

IWNIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.33
1.77

+0.57

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.31
2.51

+0.80

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.41

1.30

+0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.79

3.11

+1.68

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.22

11.02

+6.20

IWN vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWN Sharpe Ratio is 2.33, which is higher than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWN and IWM, 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

IWN vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWN drawdown since its inception was -61.55%, roughly equal to the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWN and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWNIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-61.55%

-59.05%

-2.50%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.45%

-11.03%

+2.58%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.70%

-27.50%

+0.80%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.70%

-31.91%

+5.21%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-46.08%

-41.13%

-4.95%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.31%

-3.08%

+1.77%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.10%

-10.71%

+0.61%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.35%

3.11%

-0.76%

Volatility

IWN vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF (IWN) is 3.21%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 3.82%. This indicates that IWN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWNIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.21%

3.82%

-0.61%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.81%

14.12%

-2.31%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.38%

19.41%

-2.03%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.22%

22.48%

-1.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.33%

23.01%

+0.32%

IWN vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWN has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% 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

IWN vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

IWN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, more than IWM's 0.91% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		0.91%1.04%1.15%1.35%1.48%0.94%1.04%1.26%1.40%1.26%1.38%1.54%
IWN
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF		1.44%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

With a correlation of 0.94, IWN and IWM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

IWM has higher volatility (3.82%) compared to IWN (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWN dropped -61.55% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 10.70% vs 10.28% for IWN. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWN has been the lower-risk option at 3.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWM has performed better with a 10.70% return vs 10.28%. 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 0.24% for IWN.

IWN has the higher dividend yield at 1.44%, compared with 0.91% for IWM.

IWN is categorized as Small Cap Value Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. IWN tracks Russell 2000 Value Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for IWN and 0.19% for IWM.

IWN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 1.77), 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 IWN and IWM

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