PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IXG vs. IWM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IXG vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Financials ETF (IXG) 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, IXG achieves a -0.23% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return. Over the past 10 years, IXG has outperformed IWM with an annualized return of 11.83%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively lower 10.93% annualized return.


IXG

1D
-1.08%
1M
0.73%
YTD
-0.23%
6M
3.74%
1Y
12.70%
3Y*
22.63%
5Y*
10.96%
10Y*
11.83%

IWM

1D
-1.37%
1M
3.52%
YTD
17.07%
6M
15.83%
1Y
39.10%
3Y*
17.88%
5Y*
6.11%
10Y*
10.93%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IXG vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IXG
iShares Global Financials ETF
-0.23%28.54%25.69%14.97%-8.97%25.07%-2.99%24.60%-16.33%23.78%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
17.07%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between IXG and IWM is 0.69, 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

0.69

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

0.73

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

0.77

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.76

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 27, 2001

0.74

The correlation between IXG and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

IXG vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IXG
IWM

Financial Services

97.8%
15.8%

Technology

1.1%
19.5%

Industrials

0.2%
17.1%

Energy

0.1%
6.0%

Healthcare

0.1%
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

0.1%
7.8%

Basic Materials

-

4.5%

Communication Services

-

2.0%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.1%

Real Estate

-

5.7%

Utilities

-

3.0%

Financial Services

IXG
97.8%
IWM
15.8%

Technology

IXG
1.1%
IWM
19.5%

Industrials

IXG
0.2%
IWM
17.1%

Energy

IXG
0.1%
IWM
6.0%

Healthcare

IXG
0.1%
IWM
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

IXG
0.1%
IWM
7.8%

Basic Materials

IXG

-

IWM
4.5%

Communication Services

IXG

-

IWM
2.0%

Consumer Defensive

IXG

-

IWM
2.1%

Real Estate

IXG

-

IWM
5.7%

Utilities

IXG

-

IWM
3.0%

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

IXG vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

IXG
IXG Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
IXG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2626
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IXG Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
IXG Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
IXG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
IXG Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
Martin Ratio Rank

IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
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.

IXG vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Financials ETF (IXG) 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.


IXGIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.12

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.45

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.16

1.34

-0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.13

3.56

-2.44

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.97

12.64

-8.68

IXG vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IXG Sharpe Ratio is 0.93, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IXG 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IXGIWMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.93

2.05

-1.12

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.64

0.27

+0.36

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.59

0.48

+0.11

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.24

0.37

-0.13

Drawdowns

IXG vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IXG drawdown since its inception was -78.42%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IXG and IWM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IXGIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-78.42%

-59.05%

-19.37%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.33%

-11.03%

-0.30%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.54%

-27.50%

+13.96%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-27.20%

-31.91%

+4.71%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-43.47%

-41.13%

-2.34%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.88%

-1.49%

-1.39%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-19.75%

-10.77%

-8.98%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.21%

3.10%

+0.11%

Volatility

IXG vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Financials ETF (IXG) is 3.70%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that IXG 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


IXGIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.70%

5.75%

-2.05%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.90%

13.53%

-2.63%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.67%

19.20%

-5.53%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.34%

22.52%

-5.18%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.12%

23.04%

-2.92%

IXG vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IXG has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.


Dividends

IXG vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

IXG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.05%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
0.88%1.04%1.15%1.35%1.48%0.94%1.04%1.26%1.40%1.26%1.38%1.54%
IXG
iShares Global Financials ETF
2.05%2.04%2.64%2.62%3.71%1.69%2.13%2.87%3.14%2.12%2.21%2.79%

Frequently Asked Questions


IXG and IWM have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWM has higher volatility (5.75%) compared to IXG (3.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IXG dropped -78.42% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IXG leads with 11.83% vs 10.93% for IWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IXG has been the lower-risk option at 3.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IXG has performed better with a 11.83% return vs 10.93%. 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 0.46% for IXG.

IXG has the higher dividend yield at 2.05%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.

IXG is categorized as Financials Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. IXG tracks S&P Global Financials Sector Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for IXG and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 0.93), 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 IXG 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