ZIG vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ZIG (Acquirers Fund) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZIG is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Acquirer's Index, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ZIG returned 9.54%/yr vs 6.27%/yr for IWM. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ZIG charges 1.85%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

ZIG vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Acquirers Fund (ZIG) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZIG achieves a 6.84% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 20.47% return.

ZIG

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: -1.85%
• YTD: 6.84%
• 6M: 5.65%
• 1Y: 12.97%
• 3Y*: 12.42%
• 5Y*: 9.54%
• 10Y*: —

IWM

• 1D: -0.96%
• 1M: 3.82%
• YTD: 20.47%
• 6M: 17.64%
• 1Y: 40.90%
• 3Y*: 19.22%
• 5Y*: 6.27%
• 10Y*: 11.58%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ZIG vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ZIG Acquirers Fund	6.84%	-2.67%	11.34%	36.70%	-17.34%	37.38%	-15.76%	10.14%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	20.47%	12.66%	11.38%	16.83%	-20.48%	14.54%	20.03%	9.06%

Correlation

The correlation between ZIG and IWM is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2019	0.78

The correlation between ZIG and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (1 year) to 0.80 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ZIG vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ZIG	IWM
Consumer Cyclical	39.9%	8.0%
Energy	14.6%	6.0%
Basic Materials	10.3%	4.5%
Industrials	10.2%	17.3%
Consumer Defensive	10.1%	2.0%
Financial Services	6.9%	15.5%
Healthcare	4.2%	15.6%
Technology	3.8%	20.1%
Communication Services	-	1.7%
Real Estate	-	5.5%
Utilities	-	3.1%

Return for Risk

ZIG vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ZIG

ZIG Risk / Return Rank: 23
ZIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
ZIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
ZIG Omega Ratio Rank: 21
ZIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
ZIG Martin Ratio Rank: 25

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 67
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 57
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

ZIG vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Acquirers Fund (ZIG) 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.

	ZIG	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.73	2.08	-1.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.26	2.86	-1.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.34	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.05	3.73	-2.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.12	13.18	-10.06

ZIG vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZIG Sharpe Ratio is 0.73, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZIG 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.

Drawdowns

ZIG vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZIG drawdown since its inception was -37.14%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZIG and IWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZIG	IWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.14%	-59.05%	+21.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.38%	-11.03%	-1.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.75%	-27.50%	-2.25%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.75%	-31.91%	+2.16%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.23%	-0.96%	-6.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.71%	-10.75%	+1.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.16%	3.11%	+1.05%

Volatility

ZIG vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Acquirers Fund (ZIG) is 3.49%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 6.56%. This indicates that ZIG 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.

Volatility by Period

	ZIG	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.49%	6.56%	-3.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.91%	14.31%	-4.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.95%	19.74%	-1.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.48%	22.61%	-2.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.08%	23.06%	-0.98%

ZIG vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZIG has a 1.85% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZIG vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

ZIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.79%, more than IWM's 0.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
ZIG Acquirers Fund	1.79%	1.91%	1.96%	1.07%	1.26%	0.18%	0.18%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZIG and IWM in my portfolio?

ZIG and IWM have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ZIG or IWM?

IWM has higher volatility (6.56%) compared to ZIG (3.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZIG dropped -37.14% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, ZIG or IWM?

On 5-year performance, ZIG leads with 9.54% vs 6.27% for IWM. On fees, IWM is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, ZIG has been the lower-risk option at 3.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZIG or IWM?

Over the 5-year period, ZIG has performed better with a 9.54% return vs 6.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZIG or IWM?

IWM is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 1.85% for ZIG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ZIG or IWM?

ZIG has the higher dividend yield at 1.79%, compared with 0.90% for IWM.

What is the main difference between ZIG and IWM?

ZIG is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. ZIG tracks Acquirer's Index, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: Acquirers Funds and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.85% for ZIG and 0.19% for IWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 0.73), 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.