LQD vs. IWM

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM).

LQD and IWM are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. LQD is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index. It was launched on Jul 26, 2002. IWM is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell 2000 Index. It was launched on May 22, 2000. Both LQD and IWM are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

LQD vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

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

LQD vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	-0.38%	7.90%	0.86%	9.40%	-17.92%	-1.84%	10.97%	17.37%	-3.79%	7.06%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	0.93%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	-20.48%	14.54%	20.03%	25.39%	-11.12%	14.58%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LQD achieves a -0.38% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 0.93% return. Over the past 10 years, LQD has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 2.61%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 9.76% annualized return.

LQD

• 1D: 0.63%
• 1M: -2.07%
• YTD: -0.38%
• 6M: -0.04%
• 1Y: 4.88%
• 3Y*: 4.26%
• 5Y*: 0.09%
• 10Y*: 2.61%

IWM

• 1D: 3.50%
• 1M: -4.96%
• YTD: 0.93%
• 6M: 3.02%
• 1Y: 25.66%
• 3Y*: 12.94%
• 5Y*: 3.34%
• 10Y*: 9.76%

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

LQD vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

LQD 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%.

IWM

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

LQD

iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF

Return for Risk

LQD vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

LQD

LQD Risk / Return Rank: 46
LQD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
LQD Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
LQD Omega Ratio Rank: 37
LQD Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
LQD Martin Ratio Rank: 47

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 69
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 61
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

LQD vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) 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.

	LQD	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.74	1.11	-0.37
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.04	1.66	-0.62
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.21	-0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.50	1.82	-0.32
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.15	6.76	-2.61
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LQD vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LQD Sharpe Ratio is 0.74, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LQD and IWM, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LQD	IWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.74	1.11	-0.37
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.01	0.15	-0.14
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.30	0.43	-0.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.34	+0.20

Correlation

The correlation between LQD and IWM is 0.02, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

LQD vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

LQD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.52%, more than IWM's 1.02% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	4.52%	4.48%	4.45%	3.99%	3.30%	2.30%	2.66%	3.29%	3.67%	3.10%	3.34%	3.47%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	1.02%	1.04%	1.15%	1.35%	1.48%	0.94%	1.04%	1.26%	1.40%	1.26%	1.38%	1.54%

Drawdowns

LQD vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LQD drawdown since its inception was -24.95%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQD and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	LQD	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.95%	-59.05%	+34.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.38%	-13.74%	+10.36%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.95%	-31.91%	+6.96%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.95%	-41.13%	+16.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.52%	-7.91%	+3.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.99%	-10.83%	+6.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.22%	3.70%	-2.48%

Volatility

LQD vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) is 2.65%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 7.47%. This indicates that LQD 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.

Volatility by Period

	LQD	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.65%	7.47%	-4.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.76%	14.47%	-10.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.60%	23.18%	-16.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.66%	22.55%	-13.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.67%	22.99%	-14.32%