ITOT vs IWM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
ITOT and IWM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. ITOT is iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF, while IWM is iShares Russell 2000 ETF. ITOT is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IWM ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 56.
What is the main difference between ITOT and IWM?
ITOT and IWM have little in common: 4% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | ITOT | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.19% |
| Holdings | 2,438 | 1,962 |
| Top-10 concentration | 33.9% | 3.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.01% | 0.99% |
| Average volume | 1,619,536 | 22,875,845 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.8% | +12.5% |
| YTD return | +12.6% | +12% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.4% | +5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 18.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -11.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -25.4% | -31.9% |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | 0.96 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 51/100 | 38/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 87/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF
IWM leads
IWM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support IWM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWM over ITOT, 60 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. IWM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while ITOT holds the stronger momentum profile. IWM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. IWM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF and iShares Russell 2000 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
ITOT vs IWM: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | ITOT | IWM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.19% | ITOT |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 2,438 | 1,962 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 33.9% | 3.2% | IWM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.01% | 0.99% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -25.4% | -31.9% | ITOT |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13% | 18.3% | ITOT |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare ITOT and IWM against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value35 vs 55IWM +20
- Momentum51 vs 38ITOT +13
- Risk Resilience87 vs 76ITOT +11
- Quality66 vs 75IWM +9
2 of 4 evidence groups favor IWM. IWM’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; ITOT keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
IWM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ITOT and IWM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
ITOT (iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | ITOT | IWM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.19% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 2,438 | 1,962 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,619,536 | 22,875,845 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 18.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -11.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.56 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.17 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
ITOT and IWM share 3.95% of their weighted exposure across 1,388 common holdings.
1,044 holdings are unique to ITOT, and 568 holdings are unique to IWM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
ITOT is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 33.85% of the fund, against 3.21% for IWM (2,438 holdings vs 1,962). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | ITOT | IWM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| HRIHERC HOLDINGS | 0.01% | 0.16% | 0.01% |
| UMBFUMB FINANCIAL | 0.01% | 0.34% | 0.01% |
| PIPRPIPER SANDLER COMPANIES | 0.01% | 0.18% | 0.01% |
| OSCROSCAR HEALTH CLASS A | 0.01% | 0.25% | 0.01% |
| SLGSL GREEN REALTY REIT CORP | 0.01% | 0.12% | 0.01% |
| ESEESCO TECHNOLOGIES | 0.01% | 0.23% | 0.01% |
| TWSTTWIST BIOSCIENCE | 0.01% | 0.27% | 0.01% |
| CRCCALIFORNIA RESOURCES | 0.01% | 0.14% | 0.01% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What ITOT adds that IWM doesn’t
| Holding | ITOT | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 7.33% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 6.27% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 4.94% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.34% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 2.62% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.33% | Not held |
What IWM adds that ITOT doesn’t
| Holding | IWM | ITOT |
|---|---|---|
| UMBFUMB FINANCIAL | 0.34% | 0.01% |
| MOG-AMOOG INC CLASS A | 0.34% | 0.01% |
| GKOSGLAUKOS | 0.34% | 0.01% |
| BTSGBRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES INC | 0.33% | 0.01% |
| HUTHUT CORP | 0.32% | 0.01% |
| CYTKCYTOKINETICS | 0.32% | 0.01% |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
ITOT vs IWM: five-year payout growth
ITOT grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.17% a year against IWM's 4.56%. ITOT never reduced its annual distribution in the window; IWM did in 1 year. ITOT: The 2020 payout was 10.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | ITOT | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.17% | 4.56% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.219 | $2.044 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.644 | $2.555 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #84 of 138 | #100 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IWM | 56 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWM | Value 35 vs 55 |
| Technicals | ITOT | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs -4%; vs 200-day 5.4% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ITOT | Risk Resilience 87 vs 76 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ITOT and IWM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on IWM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20IWM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IWM +4
- 56 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- IWM +3
- 55 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- IWM +2
- 55 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- IWM +4
- 64 vs 68
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when IWM moved ahead of ITOT.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 3 neutral, conflicted
Only ITOT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
IWM leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.59%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.25%, AIQ +2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1ITOT closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWM's edge.
- 2ITOT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3IWM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
ITOT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ITOT | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.2% | -6.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.4% | 0.5% |
| Year to date | 12.6% | 12% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.8% | 12.5% |
Technicals
ITOT has the stronger structure| Metric | ITOT | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.6 | 46.9 |
| ADX (14) | 13.5 | 40.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.4% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.4% | 15.8% |
Risk
ITOT is the more resilient| Metric | ITOT | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | 0.96 |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -11.4% |
| Current drawdown | -1.9% | -9.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 18.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.3% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between ITOT and IWM?
ITOT and IWM have little in common: 4% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do ITOT and IWM overlap?
ITOT and IWM share 3.95% of their weighted exposure across 1,388 common holdings. 1,044 holdings are unique to ITOT, and 568 holdings are unique to IWM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, ITOT or IWM?
They hold a similar number of positions: 2,438 for ITOT and 1,962 for IWM.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
ITOT has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.19% for IWM.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.01% for ITOT and 0.99% for IWM.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWM has been more volatile over the past year, at 18.3% annualized against 13% for ITOT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
ITOT fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -25.4% against -31.9% for IWM.
Compare ITOT and IWM with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.