IWM vs VEU: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWM and VEU are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWM is iShares Russell 2000 ETF, while VEU is Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF. VEU is broader by holdings count, with 3,884 positions versus 1,962 for IWM. VEU is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VEU ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 60.
What is the main difference between IWM and VEU?
IWM and VEU have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IWM | VEU |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 1,962 | 3,884 |
| Top-10 concentration | 3.2% | 14% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.99% | 2.4% |
| Average volume | 22,875,845 | 2,566,805 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +12.5% | +13.3% |
| YTD return | +12% | +11.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.2% | +8.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 18.3% | 17.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.4% | -11.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -31.9% | -28.5% |
| Beta | 1.17 | 1.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.56 | 0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.96 | 0.89 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 61/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 38/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 76/100 | 82/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell 2000 ETF vs Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF
VEU leads
VEU leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VEU, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VEU over IWM, 61 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. VEU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while IWM holds the stronger quality profile. VEU also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VEU today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. VEU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Russell 2000 ETF and Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWM vs VEU: 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 | VEU | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.19% | 0.04% | VEU |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,962 | 3,884 | VEU |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 3.2% | 14% | IWM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.99% | 2.4% | VEU |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -31.9% | -28.5% | VEU |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 18.3% | 17.3% | VEU |
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 VEU 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.
- Quality75 vs 68IWM +7
- Risk Resilience76 vs 82VEU +6
- Value55 vs 59VEU +4
- Momentum38 vs 41Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VEU. VEU’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; 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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
VEU's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWM and VEU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VEU (Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF): the counter-case, on quality.
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 | VEU | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,962 | 3,884 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 22,875,845 | 2,566,805 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 18.3% | 17.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.4% | -11.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.56 | 0.59 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.17 | 1.11 | 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 VEU share 0.03% of their weighted exposure across 6 common holdings.
1,950 holdings are unique to IWM, and 3,682 holdings are unique to VEU. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VEU is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 14.01% of the fund, against 3.21% for IWM (3,884 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 | IWM | VEU | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| FRBAFirst Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC | 0.01% | 0.06% | 0.01% |
| MCYMERCURY GENERAL | 0.09% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| APAMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| MTRXMATRIX SERVICE | 0.01% | 0% | 0% |
| DMCDEL MONTE | 0.04% | 0% | 0% |
| MEGONTERRIS | 0.02% | 0% | 0% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What IWM adds that VEU doesn’t
| Holding | IWM | VEU |
|---|---|---|
| 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 VEU adds that IWM doesn’t
| Holding | VEU | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| 2330.TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd | 4.35% | Not held |
| 005930.KSSamsung Electronics Co Ltd | 1.95% | Not held |
| ASML.ASASML Holding NV | 1.54% | Not held |
| 000660.KSSK hynix Inc | 1.53% | Not held |
| 0700.HKTencent Holdings Ltd | 0.93% | Not held |
| HSBA.LHSBC Holdings PLC | 0.89% | 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 VEU: five-year payout growth
VEU grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 14.26% a year against IWM's 4.56%. VEU: The 2020 payout was 30.0% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. VEU: The payout jumped 61.5% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. VEU: A single payment in an endpoint year was 3.7x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | IWM | VEU |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 4.56% | 14.26% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.044 | $1.166 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.555 | $2.271 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #100 of 138 | #40 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 VEU. 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 | 60 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VEU | Value 55 vs 59 |
| Technicals | VEU | Price vs 50-day -4% vs -2.5%; vs 200-day -0.8% vs 0.7% |
| Risk Resilience | VEU | 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 VEU 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 1 points. (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 VEU.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VEU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VEU +1
- 60 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- VEU +1
- 58 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- VEU +3
- 57 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 68 vs 68
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when VEU 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
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VEU
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VEU 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 +0.35%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to VEU's edge.
- 2IWM's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3VEU'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
Split across windows| Metric | IWM | VEU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | -0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | -4.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.1% | -1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.5% | 2.7% |
| Year to date | 12% | 11.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.5% | 13.3% |
Technicals
VEU has the stronger structure| Metric | IWM | VEU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.9 | 42.1 |
| ADX (14) | 40.7 | 24 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4% | -2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.8% | 0.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.8% | 12.2% |
Risk
VEU is the more resilient| Metric | IWM | VEU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.17 | 1.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.56 | 0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.96 | 0.89 |
| Max drawdown | -11.4% | -11.6% |
| Current drawdown | -9.6% | -5.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.3% | 17.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IWM and VEU?
IWM and VEU have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IWM and VEU overlap?
IWM and VEU share 0.03% of their weighted exposure across 6 common holdings. 1,950 holdings are unique to IWM, and 3,682 holdings are unique to VEU. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWM or VEU?
VEU holds more positions: 3,884 versus 1,962 for IWM.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VEU has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.19% for IWM.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VEU, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.4% 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 17.3% for VEU.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VEU fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -28.5% against -31.9% for IWM.
Compare IWM and VEU 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.