PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

SMDV vs. IWM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

SMDV (ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds - SMDV tracks the Russell 2000 Dividend Growth Index while IWM tracks the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, SMDV returned 7.53%/yr vs 10.70%/yr for IWM. Their correlation of 0.80 means they have usually moved in the same direction. SMDV charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

SMDV vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF (SMDV) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with SMDV having a 18.11% return and IWM slightly higher at 18.79%. Over the past 10 years, SMDV has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 7.53%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 10.70% annualized return.

SMDV

1D
-0.18%
1M
0.26%
6M
10.74%
YTD
18.11%
1Y
23.79%
3Y*
10.63%
5Y*
6.99%
10Y*
7.53%
ALL TIME*
8.24%

IWM

1D
-0.48%
1M
-2.14%
6M
12.62%
YTD
18.79%
1Y
36.90%
3Y*
15.11%
5Y*
6.99%
10Y*
10.70%
ALL TIME*
8.73%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

IWM

iShares Russell 2000 ETF
$6.67B$6.32B$7.45B

SMDV

ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF
$4.61M$5.90M$3.47M

SMDV vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SMDV
ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF		18.11%0.26%7.03%8.99%-5.90%18.98%-4.74%17.23%-0.58%4.63%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		18.79%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between SMDV and IWM is 0.64, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.64

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.80

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.82

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.83

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2015

0.80

The correlation between SMDV and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (1 year) to 0.83 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

SMDV vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
SMDV
IWM

Financial Services

31.5%
18.3%

Industrials

21.8%
13.7%

Utilities

17.3%
2.9%

Basic Materials

10.5%
4.5%

Real Estate

6.0%
7.0%

Consumer Cyclical

5.1%
9.2%

Consumer Defensive

3.9%
2.8%

Healthcare

1.9%
20.0%

Communication Services

1.1%
2.0%

Technology

0.8%
13.6%

Energy

-

5.6%

Financial Services

SMDV
31.5%
IWM
18.3%

Industrials

SMDV
21.8%
IWM
13.7%

Utilities

SMDV
17.3%
IWM
2.9%

Basic Materials

SMDV
10.5%
IWM
4.5%

Real Estate

SMDV
6.0%
IWM
7.0%

Consumer Cyclical

SMDV
5.1%
IWM
9.2%

Consumer Defensive

SMDV
3.9%
IWM
2.8%

Healthcare

SMDV
1.9%
IWM
20.0%

Communication Services

SMDV
1.1%
IWM
2.0%

Technology

SMDV
0.8%
IWM
13.6%

Energy

SMDV

-

IWM
5.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with SMDV:
SMDV vs. SCHDSMDV vs. REGLSMDV vs. TDVSMDV vs. RWJSMDV vs. NOBLSMDV vs. SPYSMDV vs. VBR
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. IWO

Return for Risk

SMDV vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
SMDV
SMDV Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
SMDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SMDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
SMDV Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
SMDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
SMDV Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

SMDV vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF (SMDV) 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.

SMDVIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.46
1.77

-0.31

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.30
2.51

-0.21

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.30

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.30

3.11

-0.81

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.27

11.02

-3.75

SMDV vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMDV Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SMDV 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

SMDV vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SMDV drawdown since its inception was -34.12%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMDV and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

SMDVIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.12%

-59.05%

+24.93%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.79%

-11.03%

+1.24%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.23%

-27.50%

+6.27%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.23%

-31.91%

+10.68%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.12%

-41.13%

+7.01%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.36%

-3.08%

+0.72%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.87%

-10.71%

+4.84%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.09%

3.11%

-0.02%

Volatility

SMDV vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF (SMDV) has a higher volatility of 4.40% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 3.82%. This indicates that SMDV'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

SMDVIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.40%

3.82%

+0.58%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.24%

14.12%

-3.88%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.45%

19.41%

-3.96%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.56%

22.48%

-3.92%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.75%

23.01%

-2.26%

SMDV vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

SMDV has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

SMDV vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

SMDV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.29%, more than IWM's 0.91% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		0.91%1.04%1.15%1.35%1.48%0.94%1.04%1.26%1.40%1.26%1.38%1.54%
SMDV
ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF		2.29%2.67%2.68%2.69%2.51%2.02%2.13%2.03%1.97%1.84%1.35%1.81%

Frequently Asked Questions

SMDV and IWM have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

SMDV has higher volatility (4.40%) compared to IWM (3.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMDV dropped -34.12% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 10.70% vs 7.53% for SMDV. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 3.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWM has performed better with a 10.70% return vs 7.53%. 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 0.40% for SMDV.

SMDV has the higher dividend yield at 2.29%, compared with 0.91% for IWM.

SMDV tracks Russell 2000 Dividend Growth Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for SMDV and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 1.46), 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 SMDV 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