IWM vs DIA: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWM and DIA are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWM is iShares Russell 2000 ETF, while DIA is State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust. IWM is broader by holdings count, with 1,962 positions versus 31 for DIA. DIA is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has DIA ahead on AIQ Score, 68 versus 60.
What is the main difference between IWM and DIA?
IWM holds 1,962 positions to DIA's 31, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IWM | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.16% |
| Holdings | 1,962 | 31 |
| Top-10 concentration | 3.2% | 55.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.99% | 1.37% |
| Average volume | 22,875,845 | 3,785,458 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +12.5% | +14.1% |
| YTD return | +12% | +9.1% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.2% | +9.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 18.3% | 12.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.4% | -10.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -31.9% | -20.8% |
| Beta | 1.17 | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.56 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.96 | 1.25 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 68/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 38/100 | 84/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 76/100 | 82/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell 2000 ETF vs State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust
DIA leads
DIA leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from IWM.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support DIA, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DIA over IWM, 68 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. DIA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while IWM holds the stronger quality profile. DIA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DIA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. DIA lead: Reversed — IWM led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DIA now leads by 8.
Compare iShares Russell 2000 ETF and State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWM vs DIA: 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 | IWM | DIA | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.19% | 0.16% | DIA |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,962 | 31 | IWM |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 3.2% | 55.1% | IWM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.99% | 1.37% | DIA |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -31.9% | -20.8% | DIA |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 18.3% | 12.7% | DIA |
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 IWM and DIA 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.
- Momentum38 vs 84DIA +46
- Quality75 vs 67IWM +8
- Value55 vs 47IWM +8
- Risk Resilience76 vs 82DIA +6
3 of 4 evidence groups favor DIA. DIA’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; IWM keeps a meaningful quality 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 +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +23
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
DIA's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWM and DIA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DIA (State Street SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF): the counter-case, on quality, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 15.8% against 9.7%.
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 | IWM | DIA | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.16% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,962 | 31 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 22,875,845 | 3,785,458 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 18.3% | 12.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.4% | -10.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.56 | 0.76 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.17 | 0.83 | 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
IWM and DIA share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
1,956 holdings are unique to IWM, and 30 holdings are unique to DIA. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
DIA is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 55.07% of the fund, against 3.21% for IWM (31 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 IWM adds that DIA doesn’t
| Holding | IWM | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
What DIA adds that IWM doesn’t
| Holding | DIA | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| GSGOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC | 11.61% | Not held |
| CATCATERPILLAR INC | 9.17% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 5.61% | Not held |
| UNHUNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC | 4.42% | Not held |
| AMGNAMGEN INC | 4.36% | Not held |
| TRVTRAVELERS COS INC/THE | 4.19% | 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.
IWM vs DIA: five-year payout growth
IWM grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 4.56% a year against DIA's 3.73%. DIA never reduced its annual distribution in the window; IWM did in 1 year.
| Dividend metric | IWM | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 4.56% | 3.73% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.044 | $5.728 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.555 | $6.879 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #100 of 138 | #111 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DIA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DIA | 60 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWM | Value 55 vs 47 |
| Technicals | DIA | Price vs 50-day -4% vs 0.8%; vs 200-day -0.8% vs 3.9% |
| Risk Resilience | DIA | Risk Resilience 76 vs 82 |
| 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 IWM and DIA 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 8 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 DIA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20DIA lead: Reversed — IWM led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DIA now leads by 8.
- Today
- DIA +8
- 60 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- DIA +3
- 58 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- IWM +2
- 57 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- IWM +7
- 68 vs 61
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when DIA 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IWM
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only DIA
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
DIA 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 +0.25%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.64%, AIQ +6 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 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to DIA's edge.
- 2IWM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3DIA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 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
DIA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | IWM | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | 1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.1% | 0.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.5% | 6.7% |
| Year to date | 12% | 9.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.5% | 14.1% |
Technicals
DIA has the stronger structure| Metric | IWM | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.9 | 74.7 |
| ADX (14) | 40.7 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4% | 0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.8% | 3.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.8% | 9.7% |
Risk
DIA is the more resilient| Metric | IWM | DIA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.17 | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.56 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.96 | 1.25 |
| Max drawdown | -11.4% | -10.1% |
| Current drawdown | -9.6% | -3.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.3% | 12.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -1.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IWM and DIA?
IWM holds 1,962 positions to DIA's 31, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IWM and DIA overlap?
IWM and DIA share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 1,956 holdings are unique to IWM, and 30 holdings are unique to DIA. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWM or DIA?
IWM holds more positions: 1,962 versus 31 for DIA.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
DIA has the lower expense ratio, 0.16% a year against 0.19% for IWM.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
DIA, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.37% against 0.99% for IWM.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWM has been more volatile over the past year, at 18.3% annualized against 12.7% for DIA.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
DIA fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -20.8% against -31.9% for IWM.
Compare IWM and DIA 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.