PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IXJ vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IXJ (iShares Global Healthcare ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IXJ is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the S&P Global 1200 Health Care (Sector) Capped Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IXJ returned 8.54%/yr vs 11.58%/yr for IWM. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IXJ charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

IXJ vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) 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, IXJ achieves a -1.76% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 20.47% return. Over the past 10 years, IXJ has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 8.54%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 11.58% annualized return.

IXJ

1D
1.45%
1M
0.89%
YTD
-1.76%
6M
-1.97%
1Y
13.71%
3Y*
5.44%
5Y*
4.16%
10Y*
8.54%

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

IXJ vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IXJ
iShares Global Healthcare ETF		-1.76%14.99%0.55%3.62%-4.94%19.60%12.74%23.23%2.83%20.44%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		20.47%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between IXJ and IWM is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.42

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

0.46

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

0.53

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

0.56

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 26, 2001

0.62

The correlation between IXJ and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.42 (1 year) to 0.62 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IXJ vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IXJ
IWM

Healthcare

98.5%
15.6%

Consumer Defensive

0.5%
2.0%

Basic Materials

-

4.5%

Communication Services

-

1.7%

Consumer Cyclical

-

8.0%

Energy

-

6.0%

Financial Services

-

15.5%

Industrials

-

17.3%

Real Estate

-

5.5%

Technology

-

20.1%

Utilities

-

3.1%

Healthcare

IXJ
98.5%
IWM
15.6%

Consumer Defensive

IXJ
0.5%
IWM
2.0%

Basic Materials

IXJ

-

IWM
4.5%

Communication Services

IXJ

-

IWM
1.7%

Consumer Cyclical

IXJ

-

IWM
8.0%

Energy

IXJ

-

IWM
6.0%

Financial Services

IXJ

-

IWM
15.5%

Industrials

IXJ

-

IWM
17.3%

Real Estate

IXJ

-

IWM
5.5%

Technology

IXJ

-

IWM
20.1%

Utilities

IXJ

-

IWM
3.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Global Healthcare ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with IXJ:
IXJ vs. XLVIXJ vs. VHTIXJ vs. IHIIXJ vs. XDWH.LIXJ vs. FHLCIXJ vs. IVVIXJ vs. HLTH.L
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA

Return for Risk

IXJ vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IXJ
IXJ Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
IXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
IXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 2525
Omega Ratio Rank
IXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
IXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 5757
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
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.

IXJ vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

IXJIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.93
2.08

-1.16

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.49
2.86

-1.37

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.34

-0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.28

3.73

-2.45

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.02

13.18

-10.17

IXJ vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IXJ Sharpe Ratio is 0.93, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IXJ 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

IXJ vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IXJ drawdown since its inception was -40.60%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IXJ and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IXJIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-40.60%

-59.05%

+18.45%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.78%

-11.03%

+0.25%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.14%

-27.50%

+9.36%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.14%

-31.91%

+13.77%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.35%

-41.13%

+13.78%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.93%

-0.96%

-4.97%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.92%

-10.75%

+3.83%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.56%

3.11%

+1.45%

Volatility

IXJ vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) is 5.06%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 6.56%. This indicates that IXJ 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

IXJIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.06%

6.56%

-1.50%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.49%

14.31%

-3.82%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.87%

19.74%

-4.87%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.28%

22.61%

-8.33%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.67%

23.06%

-7.39%

IXJ vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IXJ has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

IXJ vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

IXJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.52%, more than IWM's 0.90% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
IXJ
iShares Global Healthcare ETF		1.52%1.40%1.50%1.38%1.17%1.12%1.27%1.42%2.11%1.46%1.73%2.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

IXJ and IWM have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWM has higher volatility (6.56%) compared to IXJ (5.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IXJ dropped -40.60% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 11.58% vs 8.54% for IXJ. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IXJ has been the lower-risk option at 5.06%. 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 11.58% return vs 8.54%. 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 0.40% for IXJ.

IXJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.52%, compared with 0.90% for IWM.

IXJ is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. IXJ tracks S&P Global 1200 Health Care (Sector) Capped Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for IXJ and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 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 IXJ 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