IWM vs VXUS ETF Comparison
Compare IWM and VXUS across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between IWM and VXUS?
IWM is iShares Russell 2000 ETF, while VXUS is Vanguard Total International Stock ETF. IWM is tied to Equity; VXUS is tied to International Equity. VXUS is broader by holdings count, with 8,285 positions versus 1,950 for IWM. VXUS is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | IWM | VXUS | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.05% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $79.9B | $646.2B | Fund |
| Holdings | 1,950 | 8,285 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 6% | 14.1% | Fund |
| Average volume | 35,289,965 | 4,720,767 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | International Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 18.8% | 17% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -11.2% | -11.4% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.20 | 1.09 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.13 | 1.12 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.92 | 1.56 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 58/100 | 67/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 10/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 32/100 | 63/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 84/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell 2000 ETF vs Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
VXUS leads
VXUS leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VXUS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VXUS over IWM, 67 versus 58 as of Sep 5, 2026. VXUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. VXUS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VXUS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VXUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Russell 2000 ETF and Vanguard Total International Stock ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare IWM and VXUS 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.
- Momentum25%32 vs 63VXUS +31
- Risk Resilience15%75 vs 84VXUS +9
- Value30%52 vs 54Even
- Quality30%76 vs 76Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VXUS. VXUS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
VXUS's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWM and VXUS both carry a full feed there.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
VXUSVXUS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
VXUSVXUS on the Momentum factor, by 31 points.
Lower downside
VXUSVXUS on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | VXUS | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.05% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $79.9B | $646.2B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 1,961 | 8,602 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 35,289,965 | 4,720,767 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 18.8% | 17% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -11.2% | -11.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.13 | 1.12 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.20 | 1.09 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
IWM and VXUS share 0.09% of their weighted exposure across 12 common holdings.
VXUS is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 14.13% of the fund, against 5.96% for IWM (8285 holdings vs 1950). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
1938 holdings are unique to IWM and 8273 to VXUS. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | IWM | VXUS | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| SSRM.TOSSR MINING | 0.51% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| EFR.TOENERGY FUELS | 0.23% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| NG.TONOVAGOLD RESOURCES INC | 0.18% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| PPTA.TOPERPETUA RESOURCES | 0.13% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| BBUC.TOBROOKFIELD BUSINESS CORP CLASS A | 0.12% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| FRBAFIRST BANK | 0.01% | 0.05% | 0.01% |
| BIPC.TOBROOKFIELD INFRASTRUCTURE CORP CLA | 0.15% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| PLUSEPLUS | 0.15% | 0% | 0% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWM or VXUS?
VXUS currently has more reported holdings, with 8,285 positions versus 1,950.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VXUS has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWM has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IWM has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
VXUS currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 67 to 58.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VXUS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VXUS | 58 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 52 vs 54 |
| Technicals | VXUS | Price vs 50-day -0.4% vs 3.2%; vs 200-day 8.4% vs 7.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VXUS | Risk Resilience 75 vs 84 |
| 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 VXUS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 VXUS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3VXUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VXUS +9
- 58 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- VXUS +9
- 59 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- VXUS +3
- 68 vs 71
- 90 sessions ago
- IWM +1
- 68 vs 67
The lead changed hands 12 times in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when VXUS 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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.07%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.13%)
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.16%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
VXUS 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.28%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.5%, AIQ +1 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 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to VXUS's edge.
- 2IWM's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3VXUS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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.
Technicals
VXUS has the stronger structure| Metric | IWM | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34 | 51.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.9 | 11.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.4% | 3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.4% | 7.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.8% | 10.8% |
Risk
VXUS is the more resilient| Metric | IWM | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.2 | 1.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.13 | 1.12 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.92 | 1.56 |
| Max drawdown | -11.2% | -11.4% |
| Current drawdown | -3.2% | -0.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.8% | 17% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IWM or VXUS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VXUS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 67 against IWM's 58. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is IWM or VXUS the better buy right now?
VXUS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VXUS over IWM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. VXUS leads Momentum by 31 points; VXUS leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, IWM or VXUS?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, IWM or VXUS?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, IWM or VXUS?
VXUS on the Momentum factor, by 31 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, IWM or VXUS?
VXUS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VXUS on Risk Resilience, by 9 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is IWM more profitable than VXUS?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is VXUS's lead over IWM getting stronger or weaker?
VXUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 12 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-31, when VXUS moved ahead of IWM.
What would change the IWM vs VXUS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IWM closes the Momentum gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to VXUS's edge; IWM's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; VXUS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about IWM and VXUS?
IWM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VXUS: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on IWM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On VXUS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare IWM and VXUS with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.