PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

RING vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 24, 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 12.92%/yr vs 11.58%/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.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RING achieves a -8.53% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 20.47% return. Over the past 10 years, RING has outperformed IWM with an annualized return of 12.92%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively lower 11.58% annualized return.

RING

1D
-4.54%
1M
-9.24%
YTD
-8.53%
6M
-13.08%
1Y
52.30%
3Y*
44.79%
5Y*
20.81%
10Y*
12.92%

IWM

1D
-0.96%
1M
3.82%
YTD
20.47%
6M
17.64%
1Y
40.90%
3Y*
19.22%
5Y*
6.27%
10Y*
11.58%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RING vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RING
iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF		-8.53%164.72%15.98%12.29%-15.40%-7.46%24.98%49.92%-13.14%10.24%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		20.47%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 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.40

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

0.33

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

0.30

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.19

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2012

0.18

Over the past year, RING and IWM have become more correlated (0.40) than their long-term average of 0.18, meaning their price movements have been converging.

RING vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
RING
IWM

Basic Materials

99.7%
4.5%

Financial Services

0.1%
15.5%

Communication Services

-

1.7%

Consumer Cyclical

-

8.0%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.0%

Energy

-

6.0%

Healthcare

-

15.6%

Industrials

-

17.3%

Real Estate

-

5.5%

Technology

-

20.1%

Utilities

-

3.1%

Basic Materials

RING
99.7%
IWM
4.5%

Financial Services

RING
0.1%
IWM
15.5%

Communication Services

RING

-

IWM
1.7%

Consumer Cyclical

RING

-

IWM
8.0%

Consumer Defensive

RING

-

IWM
2.0%

Energy

RING

-

IWM
6.0%

Healthcare

RING

-

IWM
15.6%

Industrials

RING

-

IWM
17.3%

Real Estate

RING

-

IWM
5.5%

Technology

RING

-

IWM
20.1%

Utilities

RING

-

IWM
3.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with RING:
RING vs. GDXRING vs. GLDRING vs. SLVPRING vs. AUMIRING vs. GOLDRING vs. FGDLRING vs. SGDM
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA

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: 3030
Overall Rank
RING Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3232
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RING Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
RING Omega Ratio Rank: 3232
Omega Ratio Rank
RING Calmar Ratio Rank: 3030
Calmar Ratio Rank
RING Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 5757
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
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.

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.

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.

RINGIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.09
2.08

-0.99

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.53
2.86

-1.34

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

1.34

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.47

3.73

-2.25

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.91

13.18

-9.27

RING vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RING Sharpe Ratio is 1.09, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. 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.

Loading charts...

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.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RINGIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-79.47%

-59.05%

-20.42%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-35.72%

-11.03%

-24.69%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-35.72%

-27.50%

-8.22%

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

-32.25%

-0.96%

-31.29%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-47.33%

-10.75%

-36.58%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

13.40%

3.11%

+10.29%

Volatility

RING vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF (RING) has a higher volatility of 17.22% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 6.56%. 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

RINGIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

17.22%

6.56%

+10.66%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

39.95%

14.31%

+25.64%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

48.04%

19.74%

+28.30%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

36.94%

22.61%

+14.33%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

36.73%

23.06%

+13.67%

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 1.35%, more than IWM's 0.90% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
RING
iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF		1.35%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

RING and IWM have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

RING has higher volatility (17.22%) compared to IWM (6.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RING dropped -79.47% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, RING leads with 12.92% vs 11.58% for IWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 6.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, RING has performed better with a 12.92% return vs 11.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

RING has the higher dividend yield at 1.35%, compared with 0.90% for 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.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 1.09), 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 RING 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