IWM vs VXUS: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWM and VXUS are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWM is IWM ETF, while VXUS is VXUS ETF.
| Metric | IWM | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ||
| 5Y annualized returnPrice return, distributions excluded | +4% | +5.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Max drawdown (5Y)Price return, distributions excluded | -33.1% | -31.2% |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
IWM vs VXUS
IWM and VXUS are effectively level
IWM and VXUS are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate IWM and VXUS as of the latest close. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare IWM and VXUS across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare IWM and VXUS against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
IWM vs VXUS: five-year payout growth
VXUS grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 13.28% a year against IWM's 4.56%. VXUS: The 2020 payout was 24.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. VXUS: The payout jumped 53.0% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. VXUS: A single payment in an endpoint year was 3.9x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | IWM | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 4.56% | 13.28% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.044 | $1.286 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.555 | $2.399 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #100 of 138 | #43 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Not covered | Not covered |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | Not covered | Not covered |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
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.
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -33.1% for IWM and -31.2% for VXUS.
Compare IWM and VXUS 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.