RING vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RING (iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RING is a Gold fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Select Gold Miners Investable Market Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RING returned 14.97%/yr vs 11.08%/yr for IWM. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RING charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

RING vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF (RING) 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, RING achieves a 3.48% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 18.69% return. Over the past 10 years, RING has outperformed IWM with an annualized return of 14.97%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively lower 11.08% annualized return.

RING

• 1D: 0.94%
• 1M: 0.94%
• YTD: 3.48%
• 6M: 10.13%
• 1Y: 71.38%
• 3Y*: 48.61%
• 5Y*: 21.02%
• 10Y*: 14.97%

IWM

• 1D: 0.93%
• 1M: 4.43%
• YTD: 18.69%
• 6M: 19.57%
• 1Y: 43.31%
• 3Y*: 18.42%
• 5Y*: 6.49%
• 10Y*: 11.08%

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

RING vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RING iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF	3.48%	164.72%	15.98%	12.29%	-15.40%	-7.46%	24.98%	49.92%	-13.14%	10.24%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	18.69%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	-20.48%	14.54%	20.03%	25.39%	-11.12%	14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between RING and IWM is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.32
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2012	0.18

The correlation between RING and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.18 (all time) to 0.35 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RING vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RING	IWM
Basic Materials	100.0%	4.5%
Communication Services	-	2.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	7.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.1%
Energy	-	6.0%
Financial Services	-	15.8%
Healthcare	-	15.8%
Industrials	-	17.1%
Real Estate	-	5.7%
Technology	-	19.5%
Utilities	-	3.0%

Return for Risk

RING vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

RING

RING Risk / Return Rank: 44
RING Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
RING Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
RING Omega Ratio Rank: 42
RING Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
RING Martin Ratio Rank: 44

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 69
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 60
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

RING vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF (RING) 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.

	RING	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	2.27	-0.71
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.94	3.12	-1.18
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.37	-0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.72	3.97	-1.25
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	7.11	14.12	-7.00
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RING vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RING Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RING 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

	RING	IWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.57	2.27	-0.71
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58	0.29	+0.29
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.41	0.48	-0.07
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.11	0.37	-0.26

Drawdowns

RING vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RING drawdown since its inception was -79.47%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RING and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	RING	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.47%	-59.05%	-20.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.11%	-11.03%	-19.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.11%	-27.50%	-2.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-47.94%	-31.91%	-16.03%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.04%	-41.13%	-10.91%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.36%	-0.13%	-23.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-47.41%	-10.77%	-36.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.53%	3.10%	+8.43%

Volatility

RING vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF (RING) has a higher volatility of 14.72% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 5.56%. This indicates that RING's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RING	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.72%	5.56%	+9.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	37.25%	13.52%	+23.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	46.16%	19.14%	+27.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.47%	22.52%	+13.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.53%	23.04%	+13.49%

RING vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

RING has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

RING vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

RING's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.81%, less than IWM's 0.87% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	0.87%	1.04%	1.15%	1.35%	1.48%	0.94%	1.04%	1.26%	1.40%	1.26%	1.38%	1.54%
RING iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF	0.81%	0.84%	1.43%	2.01%	2.29%	2.38%	0.83%	0.83%	0.70%	0.42%	1.41%	0.96%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RING and IWM in my portfolio?

RING and IWM have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RING or IWM?

RING has higher volatility (14.72%) compared to IWM (5.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RING dropped -79.47% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, RING or IWM?

On 10-year performance, RING leads with 14.97% vs 11.08% for IWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 5.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RING or IWM?

Over the 10-year period, RING has performed better with a 14.97% return vs 11.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RING or IWM?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for RING.

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

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.87%, compared with 0.81% for RING.

What is the main difference between RING and IWM?

RING is categorized as Gold, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. RING tracks MSCI ACWI Select Gold Miners Investable Market Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RING and 0.19% for IWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 1.57), 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.