QNXT vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

QNXT (iShares Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QNXT is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 UCITS Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, QNXT returned 18.98% vs 39.77% for IWM. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QNXT charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

QNXT vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 ETF (QNXT) 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, QNXT achieves a 12.56% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 21.03% return.

QNXT

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: 1.95%
• YTD: 12.56%
• 6M: 11.13%
• 1Y: 18.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWM

• 1D: 0.46%
• 1M: 4.31%
• YTD: 21.03%
• 6M: 17.89%
• 1Y: 39.77%
• 3Y*: 19.40%
• 5Y*: 6.33%
• 10Y*: 11.63%

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

QNXT vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QNXT iShares Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 ETF	12.56%	14.97%	-2.58%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	21.03%	12.66%	1.08%

Correlation

The correlation between QNXT and IWM is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2024	0.79

The correlation between QNXT and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

QNXT vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QNXT	IWM
Technology	45.3%	20.1%
Consumer Cyclical	15.1%	8.0%
Industrials	9.7%	17.3%
Communication Services	9.1%	1.7%
Healthcare	6.8%	15.6%
Consumer Defensive	5.5%	2.0%
Utilities	5.4%	3.1%
Energy	2.3%	6.0%
Financial Services	0.8%	15.5%
Real Estate	0.3%	5.5%
Basic Materials	-	4.5%

Return for Risk

QNXT vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

QNXT

QNXT Risk / Return Rank: 38
QNXT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
QNXT Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
QNXT Omega Ratio Rank: 35
QNXT Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
QNXT Martin Ratio Rank: 42

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 70
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 61
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

QNXT vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 ETF (QNXT) 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.

	QNXT	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.21	2.03	-0.82
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.72	2.80	-1.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.33	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.88	3.62	-1.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.99	12.82	-6.83

QNXT vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QNXT Sharpe Ratio is 1.21, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QNXT 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.

Drawdowns

QNXT vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QNXT drawdown since its inception was -22.25%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QNXT and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	QNXT	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.25%	-59.05%	+36.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.16%	-11.03%	+0.87%
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	-3.28%	-0.50%	-2.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.74%	-10.74%	+7.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.18%	3.11%	+0.07%

Volatility

QNXT vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

iShares Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 ETF (QNXT) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) have volatilities of 6.79% and 6.52%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QNXT	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.79%	6.52%	+0.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.00%	14.30%	-2.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.92%	19.71%	-3.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.92%	22.60%	-2.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.92%	23.06%	-3.14%

QNXT vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

QNXT has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

QNXT vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

QNXT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.67%, less than IWM's 0.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
QNXT iShares Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 ETF	0.67%	0.64%	0.22%	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 QNXT and IWM in my portfolio?

QNXT and IWM have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QNXT or IWM?

QNXT has higher volatility (6.79%) compared to IWM (6.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QNXT dropped -22.25% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, QNXT or IWM?

On 1-year performance, IWM leads with 39.77% vs 18.98% for QNXT. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 6.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QNXT or IWM?

Over the 1-year period, IWM has performed better with a 39.77% return vs 18.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QNXT or IWM?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for QNXT.

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

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.90%, compared with 0.67% for QNXT.

What is the main difference between QNXT and IWM?

QNXT is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. QNXT tracks Nasdaq-100 ex Top 30 UCITS Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for QNXT and 0.19% for IWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 1.21), 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.