PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

LCTU vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

LCTU (BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LCTU is a ESG fund actively managed by BlackRock, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. LCTU is actively managed, while IWM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LCTU returned 12.39%/yr vs 6.41%/yr for IWM. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LCTU charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

LCTU vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) 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, LCTU achieves a 9.23% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 20.19% return.

LCTU

1D
1.73%
1M
2.67%
YTD
9.23%
6M
9.49%
1Y
25.98%
3Y*
19.96%
5Y*
12.39%
10Y*
—

IWM

1D
0.82%
1M
6.39%
YTD
20.19%
6M
17.83%
1Y
42.91%
3Y*
17.97%
5Y*
6.41%
10Y*
11.40%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LCTU vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
LCTU
BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF		9.23%16.96%24.00%25.38%-20.02%17.74%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		20.19%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%1.56%

Correlation

The correlation between LCTU and IWM is 0.81, 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

0.81

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

0.80

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

0.84

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2021

0.83

The correlation between LCTU and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

LCTU vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
LCTU
IWM

Technology

37.8%
19.2%

Financial Services

11.3%
15.4%

Consumer Cyclical

10.3%
7.9%

Communication Services

9.9%
2.5%

Healthcare

8.6%
16.3%

Industrials

8.3%
17.9%

Consumer Defensive

4.5%
2.2%

Energy

3.0%
5.4%

Utilities

2.3%
2.7%

Real Estate

2.2%
5.9%

Basic Materials

1.9%
4.7%

Technology

LCTU
37.8%
IWM
19.2%

Financial Services

LCTU
11.3%
IWM
15.4%

Consumer Cyclical

LCTU
10.3%
IWM
7.9%

Communication Services

LCTU
9.9%
IWM
2.5%

Healthcare

LCTU
8.6%
IWM
16.3%

Industrials

LCTU
8.3%
IWM
17.9%

Consumer Defensive

LCTU
4.5%
IWM
2.2%

Energy

LCTU
3.0%
IWM
5.4%

Utilities

LCTU
2.3%
IWM
2.7%

Real Estate

LCTU
2.2%
IWM
5.9%

Basic Materials

LCTU
1.9%
IWM
4.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with LCTU:
LCTU vs. LCTDLCTU vs. SPYLCTU vs. BSJOLCTU vs. IVVLCTU vs. QQQLCTU vs. SCHDLCTU vs. VONG
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA

Return for Risk

LCTU vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
LCTU
LCTU Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
LCTU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LCTU Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
LCTU Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
LCTU Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
LCTU Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7575
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
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.

LCTU vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) 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.

LCTUIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.05
2.20

-0.15

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.80
2.99

-0.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.36

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.78

3.91

-1.13

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.10

13.84

-1.74

LCTU vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCTU Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCTU 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

LCTU vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCTU drawdown since its inception was -25.93%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCTU and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

LCTUIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-25.93%

-59.05%

+33.12%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.38%

-11.03%

+1.65%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.83%

-27.50%

+7.67%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.93%

-31.91%

+5.98%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-41.13%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.57%

0.00%

-0.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.29%

-10.75%

+4.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.15%

3.11%

-0.96%

Volatility

LCTU vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) is 4.49%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 7.17%. This indicates that LCTU 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

LCTUIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.49%

7.17%

-2.68%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.05%

14.27%

-4.22%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.76%

19.67%

-6.91%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.23%

22.62%

-5.39%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.04%

23.09%

-6.05%

LCTU vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCTU has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

LCTU vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

LCTU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.15%, more than IWM's 1.10% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		1.10%1.04%1.15%1.35%1.48%0.94%1.04%1.26%1.40%1.26%1.38%1.54%
LCTU
BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF		1.15%1.02%1.27%1.46%1.63%2.20%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

LCTU and IWM have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWM has higher volatility (7.17%) compared to LCTU (4.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCTU dropped -25.93% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 5-year performance, LCTU leads with 12.39% vs 6.41% for IWM. On fees, LCTU is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, LCTU has been the lower-risk option at 4.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, LCTU has performed better with a 12.39% return vs 6.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

LCTU is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

LCTU has the higher dividend yield at 1.15%, compared with 1.10% for IWM.

LCTU is categorized as ESG, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for LCTU and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs 2.05), 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 LCTU 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