PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XMC.TO vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XMC.TO (iShares S&P U.S. Mid-Cap Index ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XMC.TO is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Morningstar US SMID TR CAD, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMC.TO returned 11.71%/yr vs 11.73%/yr for IWM. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XMC.TO charges 0.16%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

XMC.TO vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares S&P U.S. Mid-Cap Index ETF (XMC.TO) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

XMC.TO is traded in CAD, while IWM is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the IWM values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMC.TO achieves a 15.43% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 18.56% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with XMC.TO having a 11.71% annualized return and IWM not far ahead at 11.73%.

XMC.TO

1D
0.48%
1M
6.14%
YTD
15.43%
6M
13.83%
1Y
26.54%
3Y*
17.13%
5Y*
10.91%
10Y*
11.71%

IWM

1D
-0.96%
1M
5.59%
YTD
18.56%
6M
15.38%
1Y
40.90%
3Y*
19.25%
5Y*
9.14%
10Y*
11.73%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMC.TO vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XMC.TO
iShares S&P U.S. Mid-Cap Index ETF		15.43%2.37%22.99%13.65%-7.61%23.39%11.11%20.87%-4.83%8.74%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		18.56%7.49%20.95%14.25%-14.82%13.50%18.00%19.23%-3.58%7.29%

Correlation

The correlation between XMC.TO and IWM is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

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

0.84

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

0.88

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

0.89

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

0.85

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 11, 2015

0.82

The correlation between XMC.TO and IWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

XMC.TO vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XMC.TO
IWM

Industrials

25.0%
17.1%

Technology

16.6%
19.5%

Financial Services

13.7%
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

9.5%
7.8%

Healthcare

8.9%
15.8%

Real Estate

7.5%
5.7%

Energy

5.4%
6.0%

Basic Materials

4.8%
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

4.1%
2.1%

Utilities

3.0%
3.0%

Communication Services

1.0%
2.0%

Industrials

XMC.TO
25.0%
IWM
17.1%

Technology

XMC.TO
16.6%
IWM
19.5%

Financial Services

XMC.TO
13.7%
IWM
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

XMC.TO
9.5%
IWM
7.8%

Healthcare

XMC.TO
8.9%
IWM
15.8%

Real Estate

XMC.TO
7.5%
IWM
5.7%

Energy

XMC.TO
5.4%
IWM
6.0%

Basic Materials

XMC.TO
4.8%
IWM
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

XMC.TO
4.1%
IWM
2.1%

Utilities

XMC.TO
3.0%
IWM
3.0%

Communication Services

XMC.TO
1.0%
IWM
2.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares S&P U.S. Mid-Cap Index ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with XMC.TO:
XMC.TO vs. XSMC.TOXMC.TO vs. ZEB.TOXMC.TO vs. XSP.TOXMC.TO vs. XSMOXMC.TO vs. IMCGXMC.TO vs. FMDEXMC.TO vs. VOE
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. IWO

Return for Risk

XMC.TO vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XMC.TO
XMC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
XMC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4949
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
XMC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
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.

XMC.TO vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P U.S. Mid-Cap Index ETF (XMC.TO) 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.

XMC.TOIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.70
2.20

-0.50

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.52
3.04

-0.52

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.37

-0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.22

3.92

-0.70

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.84

12.86

-1.02

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

XMC.TO vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.70, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMC.TO 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

XMC.TOIWMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.70

2.20

-0.50

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.62

0.45

+0.17

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.63

0.56

+0.07

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.59

0.70

-0.11

Drawdowns

XMC.TO vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMC.TO drawdown since its inception was -36.38%, roughly equal to the maximum IWM drawdown of -35.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMC.TO and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XMC.TOIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.38%

-35.30%

-1.08%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.28%

-10.49%

+2.21%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.70%

-26.17%

+3.47%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.70%

-29.15%

+6.45%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.38%

-35.30%

-1.08%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-1.12%

+1.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.05%

-6.80%

+1.75%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.25%

3.19%

-0.94%

Volatility

XMC.TO vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares S&P U.S. Mid-Cap Index ETF (XMC.TO) is 4.57%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.70%. This indicates that XMC.TO 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

XMC.TOIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.57%

5.70%

-1.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.57%

13.41%

-1.84%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.76%

18.78%

-3.02%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.62%

20.32%

-2.70%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.65%

21.01%

-2.36%

XMC.TO vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMC.TO has a 0.16% 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

XMC.TO vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

XMC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.96%, 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%
XMC.TO
iShares S&P U.S. Mid-Cap Index ETF		0.96%1.10%0.94%1.17%1.27%0.99%1.07%1.40%1.56%0.96%1.09%0.51%

Frequently Asked Questions

XMC.TO and IWM have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XMC.TO is cheaper at 0.16% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XMC.TO is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

XMC.TO is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. XMC.TO tracks Morningstar US SMID TR CAD, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.16% for XMC.TO and 0.19% for IWM.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMC.TO 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