TMF vs. IWM
TMF (Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TMF is a Leveraged Bonds fund tracking the ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index (300%), while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, TMF returned -16.87%/yr vs 11.27%/yr for IWM. At a correlation of -0.23, they often move in opposite directions. TMF charges 1.01%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
TMF vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMF achieves a -5.18% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 19.22% return. Over the past 10 years, TMF has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of -16.87%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 11.27% annualized return.
TMF
- 1D
- -0.93%
- 1M
- 7.62%
- YTD
- -5.18%
- 6M
- -5.04%
- 1Y
- -1.79%
- 3Y*
- -19.82%
- 5Y*
- -31.10%
- 10Y*
- -16.87%
IWM
- 1D
- 0.87%
- 1M
- 5.53%
- YTD
- 19.22%
- 6M
- 16.00%
- 1Y
- 41.75%
- 3Y*
- 17.23%
- 5Y*
- 6.07%
- 10Y*
- 11.27%
TMF vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TMF Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF | -5.18% | -2.94% | -35.95% | -13.01% | -72.60% | -19.80% | 39.02% | 34.75% | -11.01% | 22.72% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 19.22% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | 14.54% | 20.03% | 25.39% | -11.12% | 14.58% |
Correlation
The correlation between TMF and IWM is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.09 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 16, 2009 | -0.23 |
The correlation between TMF and IWM shifts across timeframes, from -0.23 (all time) to 0.25 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
TMF vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
TMF
IWM
TMF vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF (TMF) 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.
| TMF | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.17 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.80 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.99 | 1.33 | -0.33 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.19 | 3.57 | -3.75 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.41 | 12.63 | -13.04 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
TMF vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMF drawdown since its inception was -92.89%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMF and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMF | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -92.89% | -59.05% | -33.84% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -26.51% | -11.03% | -15.48% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -56.31% | -27.50% | -28.81% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -88.81% | -31.91% | -56.90% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -92.89% | -41.13% | -51.76% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -92.15% | 0.00% | -92.15% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -43.70% | -10.76% | -32.94% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.96% | 3.12% | +8.84% |
Volatility
TMF vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF (TMF) has a higher volatility of 8.43% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 7.16%. This indicates that TMF'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
| TMF | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.43% | 7.16% | +1.27% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.46% | 14.29% | +5.17% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 28.49% | 19.73% | +8.76% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 46.72% | 22.61% | +24.11% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 43.92% | 23.08% | +20.84% |
TMF vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMF has a 1.01% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
TMF vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
TMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.11%, more 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% |
TMF Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF | 4.11% | 4.06% | 4.29% | 2.82% | 1.62% | 0.13% | 2.23% | 0.94% | 1.49% | 0.41% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TMF and IWM have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
TMF has higher volatility (8.43%) compared to IWM (7.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMF dropped -92.89% vs IWM's -59.05%.
On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 11.27% vs -16.87% for TMF. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 7.16%. 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 11.27% return vs -16.87%. 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 1.01% for TMF.
TMF has the higher dividend yield at 4.11%, compared with 0.87% for IWM.
TMF is categorized as Leveraged Bonds, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. TMF tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index (300%), while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: Direxion and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.01% for TMF and 0.19% for IWM.
IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs -0.17), 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.
Find the right allocation for TMF 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