PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

SMDV vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

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 7.08%/yr vs 10.93%/yr for IWM. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. 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

In the year-to-date period, SMDV achieves a 8.80% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return. Over the past 10 years, SMDV has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 7.08%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 10.93% annualized return.

SMDV

1D
-1.58%
1M
-0.39%
YTD
8.80%
6M
7.57%
1Y
13.74%
3Y*
9.13%
5Y*
3.88%
10Y*
7.08%

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)

SMDV vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SMDV
ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF		8.80%0.26%7.03%8.99%-5.90%18.98%-4.74%17.23%-0.58%4.63%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		17.07%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 0.74, 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 (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.82

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

0.83

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

0.83

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 6, 2015

0.81

The correlation between SMDV and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

SMDV vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
SMDV
IWM

Financial Services

31.9%
15.8%

Industrials

22.2%
17.1%

Utilities

15.8%
3.0%

Basic Materials

7.8%
4.5%

Real Estate

7.4%
5.7%

Consumer Defensive

4.8%
2.1%

Consumer Cyclical

4.1%
7.8%

Technology

3.2%
19.5%

Healthcare

1.8%
15.8%

Communication Services

1.0%
2.0%

Energy

-

6.0%

Financial Services

SMDV
31.9%
IWM
15.8%

Industrials

SMDV
22.2%
IWM
17.1%

Utilities

SMDV
15.8%
IWM
3.0%

Basic Materials

SMDV
7.8%
IWM
4.5%

Real Estate

SMDV
7.4%
IWM
5.7%

Consumer Defensive

SMDV
4.8%
IWM
2.1%

Consumer Cyclical

SMDV
4.1%
IWM
7.8%

Technology

SMDV
3.2%
IWM
19.5%

Healthcare

SMDV
1.8%
IWM
15.8%

Communication Services

SMDV
1.0%
IWM
2.0%

Energy

SMDV

-

IWM
6.0%

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. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. IWO

Return for Risk

SMDV vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
SMDV
SMDV Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
SMDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SMDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
SMDV Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
SMDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
SMDV Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
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.

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.

SMDVIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.87
2.05

-1.18

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.42
2.85

-1.43

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.16

1.34

-0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.41

3.56

-2.15

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.25

12.64

-8.40

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SMDV vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMDV Sharpe Ratio is 0.87, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

SMDVIWMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.87

2.05

-1.18

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.21

0.27

-0.06

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.34

0.48

-0.13

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.38

0.37

+0.02

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

-2.76%

-1.49%

-1.27%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.93%

-10.77%

+4.84%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.25%

3.10%

+0.15%

Volatility

SMDV vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF (SMDV) is 4.41%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that SMDV 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

SMDVIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.41%

5.75%

-1.34%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.55%

13.53%

-2.98%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.85%

19.20%

-3.35%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.69%

22.52%

-3.83%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.73%

23.04%

-2.31%

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 2.42%, more than IWM's 0.88% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
SMDV
ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF		2.42%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 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWM has higher volatility (5.75%) compared to SMDV (4.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMDV dropped -34.12% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 10.93% vs 7.08% for SMDV. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, SMDV has been the lower-risk option at 4.41%. 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 10.93% return vs 7.08%. 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 2.42%, compared with 0.88% 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 (2.05 vs 0.87), 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