PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XMLV vs. IWM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

XMLV (Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XMLV is a Low Volatility fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Low Volatility Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMLV returned 8.01%/yr vs 10.70%/yr for IWM. Their 0.76 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. XMLV charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

XMLV vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF (XMLV) 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, XMLV achieves a 11.48% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 18.79% return. Over the past 10 years, XMLV has underperformed IWM with an annualized return of 8.01%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively higher 10.70% annualized return.

XMLV

1D
-0.40%
1M
1.77%
6M
8.77%
YTD
11.48%
1Y
15.65%
3Y*
11.57%
5Y*
7.14%
10Y*
8.01%
ALL TIME*
9.98%

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

XMLV

Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF
$1.62M$1.47M$1.28M

XMLV vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XMLV
Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF		11.48%5.55%17.08%1.86%-6.55%23.00%-8.42%23.77%-0.16%13.72%
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 XMLV and IWM is 0.43, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

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

0.43

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

0.68

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

0.74

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

0.76

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 15, 2013

0.76

Over the past year, the correlation between XMLV and IWM has dropped to 0.43 - well below their long-term average of 0.76, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

XMLV vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XMLV
IWM

Real Estate

32.8%
7.0%

Financial Services

26.0%
18.3%

Utilities

17.8%
2.9%

Industrials

10.0%
13.7%

Consumer Cyclical

4.4%
9.2%

Energy

3.7%
5.6%

Consumer Defensive

2.2%
2.8%

Healthcare

2.0%
20.0%

Basic Materials

1.0%
4.5%

Communication Services

1.0%
2.0%

Technology

1.0%
13.6%

Real Estate

XMLV
32.8%
IWM
7.0%

Financial Services

XMLV
26.0%
IWM
18.3%

Utilities

XMLV
17.8%
IWM
2.9%

Industrials

XMLV
10.0%
IWM
13.7%

Consumer Cyclical

XMLV
4.4%
IWM
9.2%

Energy

XMLV
3.7%
IWM
5.6%

Consumer Defensive

XMLV
2.2%
IWM
2.8%

Healthcare

XMLV
2.0%
IWM
20.0%

Basic Materials

XMLV
1.0%
IWM
4.5%

Communication Services

XMLV
1.0%
IWM
2.0%

Technology

XMLV
1.0%
IWM
13.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with XMLV:
XMLV vs. SPLVXMLV vs. USMVXMLV vs. VOXMLV vs. OMFLXMLV vs. VOOXMLV vs. MDYXMLV vs. FTBFX
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. IWO

Return for Risk

XMLV vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
XMLV
XMLV Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
XMLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMLV Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
XMLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 6262
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMLV 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.

XMLV vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF (XMLV) 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.

XMLVIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.43
1.77

-0.34

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.13
2.51

-0.39

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.30

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.19

3.11

-0.92

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.26

11.02

-3.76

XMLV vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMLV Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMLV 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

XMLV vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMLV drawdown since its inception was -39.86%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMLV and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XMLVIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.86%

-59.05%

+19.19%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.03%

-11.03%

+4.00%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.80%

-27.50%

+13.70%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-16.53%

-31.91%

+15.38%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.86%

-41.13%

+1.27%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.14%

-3.08%

+0.94%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.22%

-10.71%

+6.49%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.12%

3.11%

-0.99%

Volatility

XMLV vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF (XMLV) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) have volatilities of 3.85% and 3.82%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XMLVIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.85%

3.82%

+0.03%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.30%

14.12%

-5.82%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.82%

19.41%

-8.59%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.50%

22.48%

-7.98%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.97%

23.01%

-6.04%

XMLV vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMLV has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

XMLV vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

XMLV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.85%, 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%
XMLV
Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF		2.85%2.87%2.23%2.34%2.05%1.14%1.93%2.02%2.13%1.74%1.72%1.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

XMLV and IWM have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XMLV has higher volatility (3.85%) compared to IWM (3.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMLV dropped -39.86% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWM leads with 10.70% vs 8.01% for XMLV. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. Their volatility is very similar. 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 8.01%. 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 0.25% for XMLV.

XMLV has the higher dividend yield at 2.85%, compared with 0.91% for IWM.

XMLV is categorized as Low Volatility, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. XMLV tracks S&P MidCap 400 Low Volatility Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XMLV and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 1.43), 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 XMLV 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