PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

SMMD vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

SMMD (iShares Russell 2500 ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SMMD is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 2500 Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SMMD returned 7.64%/yr vs 6.33%/yr for IWM. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SMMD charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

SMMD vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2500 ETF (SMMD) 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 SMMD having a 20.43% return and IWM slightly higher at 21.03%.

SMMD

1D
0.30%
1M
3.50%
YTD
20.43%
6M
17.74%
1Y
35.27%
3Y*
19.14%
5Y*
7.64%
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)

SMMD vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SMMD
iShares Russell 2500 ETF		20.43%11.72%11.87%17.71%-18.53%18.30%19.98%28.01%-10.58%11.27%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		21.03%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%10.25%

Correlation

The correlation between SMMD and IWM is 0.98 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

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

0.98

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

0.98

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

0.99

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 7, 2017

0.94

The correlation between SMMD and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

SMMD vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
SMMD
IWM

Technology

22.7%
20.1%

Industrials

21.5%
17.3%

Financial Services

12.8%
15.5%

Healthcare

10.9%
15.6%

Consumer Cyclical

9.9%
8.0%

Real Estate

6.1%
5.5%

Energy

4.4%
6.0%

Basic Materials

4.0%
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

2.7%
2.0%

Utilities

2.6%
3.1%

Communication Services

1.9%
1.7%

Technology

SMMD
22.7%
IWM
20.1%

Industrials

SMMD
21.5%
IWM
17.3%

Financial Services

SMMD
12.8%
IWM
15.5%

Healthcare

SMMD
10.9%
IWM
15.6%

Consumer Cyclical

SMMD
9.9%
IWM
8.0%

Real Estate

SMMD
6.1%
IWM
5.5%

Energy

SMMD
4.4%
IWM
6.0%

Basic Materials

SMMD
4.0%
IWM
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

SMMD
2.7%
IWM
2.0%

Utilities

SMMD
2.6%
IWM
3.1%

Communication Services

SMMD
1.9%
IWM
1.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Russell 2500 ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with SMMD:
SMMD vs. VOOSMMD vs. IJRSMMD vs. IMCVSMMD vs. IJHSMMD vs. DODGXSMMD vs. XJRSMMD vs. IMCG
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. TNA

Return for Risk

SMMD vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
SMMD
SMMD Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
SMMD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SMMD Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
SMMD Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
SMMD Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
SMMD Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
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.

SMMD vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2500 ETF (SMMD) 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.

SMMDIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.00
2.03

-0.03

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.80
2.80

0.00

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.34

1.33

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.67

3.62

+0.04

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.89

12.82

+1.07

SMMD vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMMD Sharpe Ratio is 2.00, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SMMD 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

SMMD vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SMMD drawdown since its inception was -41.06%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMMD and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

SMMDIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.06%

-59.05%

+17.99%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.66%

-11.03%

+1.37%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.50%

-27.50%

+2.00%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.26%

-31.91%

+3.65%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-41.13%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.13%

-0.50%

-0.63%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.32%

-10.74%

+2.42%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.55%

3.11%

-0.56%

Volatility

SMMD vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 2500 ETF (SMMD) is 5.93%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 6.52%. This indicates that SMMD 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

SMMDIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.93%

6.52%

-0.59%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.36%

14.30%

-0.94%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.75%

19.71%

-1.96%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.91%

22.60%

-1.69%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.37%

23.06%

-0.69%

SMMD vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

SMMD has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

SMMD vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

SMMD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.07%, 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%
SMMD
iShares Russell 2500 ETF		1.07%1.28%1.27%1.44%1.79%1.12%1.31%1.50%2.45%0.68%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 0.98, SMMD and IWM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

IWM has higher volatility (6.52%) compared to SMMD (5.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMMD dropped -41.06% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 5-year performance, SMMD leads with 7.64% vs 6.33% for IWM. On fees, SMMD is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, SMMD has been the lower-risk option at 5.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, SMMD has performed better with a 7.64% return vs 6.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

SMMD is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

SMMD has the higher dividend yield at 1.07%, compared with 0.90% for IWM.

SMMD is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. SMMD tracks Russell 2500 Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for SMMD and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 2.00), 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 SMMD 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