MMAX vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MMAX (iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MMAX is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by iShares, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. MMAX is actively managed, while IWM is passively managed. Over the past year, MMAX returned 7.67% vs 39.10% for IWM. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MMAX charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

MMAX vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MMAX achieves a 3.09% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return.

MMAX

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 0.60%
• YTD: 3.09%
• 6M: 3.75%
• 1Y: 7.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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)

MMAX vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MMAX iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF	3.09%	5.88%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	17.07%	24.49%

Correlation

The correlation between MMAX and IWM is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 2, 2025	0.58

The correlation between MMAX and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MMAX vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

MMAX

MMAX Risk / Return Rank: 99
MMAX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
MMAX Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
MMAX Omega Ratio Rank: 99
MMAX Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
MMAX Martin Ratio Rank: 99

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 62
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 53
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

MMAX vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF (MMAX) 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.

	MMAX	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	5.52	2.05	+3.47
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	10.56	2.85	+7.71
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.51	1.34	+1.18
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	22.49	3.56	+18.93
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	112.49	12.64	+99.84
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MMAX vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MMAX Sharpe Ratio is 5.52, which is higher than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MMAX 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MMAX	IWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.52	2.05	+3.47
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.27	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.48	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	3.13	0.37	+2.77

Drawdowns

MMAX vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MMAX drawdown since its inception was -1.93%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MMAX and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	MMAX	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.93%	-59.05%	+57.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.34%	-11.03%	+10.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-27.50%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-31.91%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.13%	-1.49%	+1.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.10%	-10.77%	+10.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.07%	3.10%	-3.03%

Volatility

MMAX vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF (MMAX) is 0.36%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that MMAX 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

	MMAX	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.36%	5.75%	-5.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.96%	13.53%	-12.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.39%	19.20%	-17.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.49%	22.52%	-20.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.49%	23.04%	-20.55%

MMAX vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

MMAX has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

MMAX vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

MMAX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.27%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
MMAX iShares Large Cap Max Buffer Mar ETF	1.27%	1.31%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MMAX and IWM in my portfolio?

MMAX and IWM have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MMAX or IWM?

IWM has higher volatility (5.75%) compared to MMAX (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MMAX dropped -1.93% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, MMAX or IWM?

On 1-year performance, IWM leads with 39.10% vs 7.67% for MMAX. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, MMAX has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MMAX or IWM?

Over the 1-year period, IWM has performed better with a 39.10% return vs 7.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MMAX or IWM?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for MMAX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MMAX or IWM?

MMAX has the higher dividend yield at 1.27%, compared with 0.88% for IWM.

What is the main difference between MMAX and IWM?

MMAX is categorized as Defined Outcome, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for MMAX and 0.19% for IWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MMAX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.52 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.