IVV vs IWM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IVV and IWM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IVV is iShares Core S&P 500 ETF, while IWM is iShares Russell 2000 ETF. IWM is broader by holdings count, with 1,962 positions versus 507 for IVV. IVV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IVV ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 60.
What is the main difference between IVV and IWM?
IWM holds 1,962 positions to IVV's 507, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IVV | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.19% |
| Holdings | 507 | 1,962 |
| Top-10 concentration | 38% | 3.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.09% | 0.99% |
| Average volume | 7,331,107 | 22,875,845 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.3% | +12.5% |
| YTD return | +12.8% | +12% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +12.7% | +5.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 18.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -11.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.5% | -31.9% |
| Beta | 1.00 | 1.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.90 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.38 | 0.96 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 62/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 64/100 | 38/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 88/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF
IVV leads
IVV leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support IVV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IVV over IWM, 62 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. IVV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while IWM holds the stronger value profile. IVV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IVV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. IVV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Core S&P 500 ETF and iShares Russell 2000 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IVV 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 | IVV | IWM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.19% | IVV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 507 | 1,962 | IWM |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 38% | 3.2% | IWM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.09% | 0.99% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.5% | -31.9% | IVV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 12.8% | 18.3% | IVV |
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 IVV 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.
- Momentum64 vs 38IVV +26
- Value33 vs 55IWM +22
- Risk Resilience88 vs 76IVV +12
- Quality77 vs 75Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor IVV. IVV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; IWM keeps a meaningful value 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 +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
IVV's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IVV and IWM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IVV (iShares Core S&P 500 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 15.8% against 9%.
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 | IVV | IWM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.19% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 507 | 1,962 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 7,331,107 | 22,875,845 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 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 | 0.90 | 0.56 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.00 | 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
IVV and IWM share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
504 holdings are unique to IVV, and 1,956 holdings are unique to IWM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
IVV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 37.98% of the fund, against 3.21% for IWM (507 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.
What IVV adds that IWM doesn’t
| Holding | IVV | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 8.22% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 7.03% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 5.54% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.75% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 2.94% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.62% | Not held |
What IWM adds that IVV doesn’t
| Holding | IWM | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| UMBFUMB FINANCIAL | 0.34% | Not held |
| MOG-AMOOG INC CLASS A | 0.34% | Not held |
| GKOSGLAUKOS | 0.34% | Not held |
| BTSGBRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES INC | 0.33% | Not held |
| HUTHUT CORP | 0.32% | Not held |
| CYTKCYTOKINETICS | 0.32% | Not held |
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.
IVV vs IWM: five-year payout growth
IVV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.35% a year against IWM's 4.56%.
| Dividend metric | IVV | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.35% | 4.56% |
| 2020 annual payout | $5.908 | $2.044 |
| 2025 annual payout | $8.040 | $2.555 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #80 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 IVV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 62 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWM | Value 33 vs 55 |
| Technicals | IVV | Price vs 50-day 0.6% vs -4%; vs 200-day 5.9% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | IVV | Risk Resilience 88 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 IVV 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 IVV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20IVV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IVV +2
- 62 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- IVV +4
- 62 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- IVV +5
- 62 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 68 vs 68
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 17 when IVV moved ahead of IWM.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IVV
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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.
IVV 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 +0.56%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1IWM closes the Momentum gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to IVV's edge.
- 2IWM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3IVV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate IVV's advantage entirely.
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
IVV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | IVV | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | -6.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.2% | 0.5% |
| Year to date | 12.8% | 12% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.3% | 12.5% |
Technicals
IVV has the stronger structure| Metric | IVV | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.3 | 46.9 |
| ADX (14) | 12.5 | 40.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.6% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.9% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9% | 15.8% |
Risk
IVV is the more resilient| Metric | IVV | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 1.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.9 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.38 | 0.96 |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -11.4% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -9.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 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 IVV and IWM?
IWM holds 1,962 positions to IVV's 507, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IVV and IWM overlap?
IVV and IWM share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 504 holdings are unique to IVV, and 1,956 holdings are unique to IWM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IVV or IWM?
IWM holds more positions: 1,962 versus 507 for IVV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IVV 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: 1.09% for IVV 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 12.8% for IVV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IVV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.5% against -31.9% for IWM.
Compare IVV 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.