IWB vs IWM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWB and IWM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWB is iShares Russell 1000 ETF, while IWM is iShares Russell 2000 ETF. IWM is broader by holdings count, with 1,962 positions versus 1,021 for IWB. IWB is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IWM ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 54.
What is the main difference between IWB and IWM?
IWB and IWM have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IWB | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.19% |
| Holdings | 1,021 | 1,962 |
| Top-10 concentration | 35.1% | 3.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.91% | 0.99% |
| Average volume | 522,878 | 22,875,845 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.8% | +12.5% |
| YTD return | +12.4% | +12% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.7% | +5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 18.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -11.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -25.2% | -31.9% |
| Beta | 1.00 | 1.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.34 | 0.96 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 54/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 52/100 | 38/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 87/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell 1000 ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF
IWM leads
IWM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support IWM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWM over IWB, 60 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. IWM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while IWB 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: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. IWM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Russell 1000 ETF and iShares Russell 2000 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWB 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 | IWB | IWM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.19% | IWB |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,021 | 1,962 | IWM |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 35.1% | 3.2% | IWM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.91% | 0.99% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -25.2% | -31.9% | IWB |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 12.8% | 18.3% | IWB |
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 IWB 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.
- Value34 vs 55IWM +21
- Quality60 vs 75IWM +15
- Momentum52 vs 38IWB +14
- Risk Resilience87 vs 76IWB +11
2 of 4 evidence groups favor IWM. IWM’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; IWB 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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 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 — IWB 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.
IWB (iShares Russell 1000 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 | IWB | IWM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.19% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,021 | 1,962 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 522,878 | 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 | 0.86 | 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
IWB and IWM share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
1,017 holdings are unique to IWB, and 1,956 holdings are unique to IWM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
IWB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 35.08% of the fund, against 3.21% for IWM (1,021 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 IWB adds that IWM doesn’t
| Holding | IWB | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 7.4% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 6.47% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 5.18% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.47% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 2.73% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.4% | Not held |
What IWM adds that IWB doesn’t
| Holding | IWM | IWB |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
IWB vs IWM: five-year payout growth
IWB grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.16% a year against IWM's 4.56%.
| Dividend metric | IWB | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.16% | 4.56% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.899 | $2.044 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.729 | $2.555 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #93 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 | 54 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWM | Value 34 vs 55 |
| Technicals | IWB | Price vs 50-day 0.5% vs -4%; vs 200-day 5.7% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | IWB | 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 IWB 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 moderate at 6 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IWM +6
- 54 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- IWM +1
- 57 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- IWM +5
- 63 vs 68
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when IWM moved ahead of IWB.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IWB
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.3%)
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.
- 1IWB closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWM's edge.
- 2IWB generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 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
IWB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | IWB | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.7% | -6.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.8% | 0.5% |
| Year to date | 12.4% | 12% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.8% | 12.5% |
Technicals
IWB has the stronger structure| Metric | IWB | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.1 | 46.9 |
| ADX (14) | 12.7 | 40.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.5% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.7% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.5% | 15.8% |
Risk
IWB is the more resilient| Metric | IWB | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 1.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.34 | 0.96 |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -11.4% |
| Current drawdown | -1.5% | -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 IWB and IWM?
IWB and IWM have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IWB and IWM overlap?
IWB and IWM share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 1,017 holdings are unique to IWB, 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, IWB or IWM?
IWM holds more positions: 1,962 versus 1,021 for IWB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IWB has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.19% for IWM.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.91% for IWB 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 IWB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IWB fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -25.2% against -31.9% for IWM.
Compare IWB 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.