SPLG vs IWM ETF Comparison
Compare SPLG and IWM across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between SPLG and IWM?
SPLG is SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF, while IWM is iShares Russell 2000 ETF. SPLG is tied to Equity; IWM is tied to Equity. IWM is broader by holdings count, with 1,950 positions versus 503 for SPLG. SPLG is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | SPLG | IWM | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.02% | 0.19% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $95.7B | $79.9B | Fund |
| Holdings | 503 | 1,950 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 59% | 6% | Fund |
| Average volume | 11,823,121 | 35,289,965 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| 1Y return | - | +26.2% | Performance |
| YTD return | - | +19.9% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 11.3% | 18.8% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -3% | -11.2% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.01 | 1.20 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.30 | 1.13 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 2.96 | 1.92 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 64/100 | 57/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 7/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | - | 32/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 100/100 | 75/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF
SPLG leads
SPLG leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from IWM.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support SPLG, and the lead recently changed hands.
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPLG over IWM, 64 versus 57 as of Sep 5, 2026. SPLG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while IWM holds the stronger value profile. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SPLG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. SPLG lead: Reversed — IWM led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SPLG now leads by 7.
Compare State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF and iShares Russell 2000 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare SPLG 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.
- Risk Resilience15%100 vs 75SPLG +25
- Value30%32 vs 51IWM +19
- Quality30%77 vs 76Even
2 of 3 evidence groups favor SPLG. SPLG’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; IWM keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Value -1
No new signals fired.
SPLG's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPLG and IWM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SPLG (State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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
SPLGSPLG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
IWMIWM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
SPLGSPLG on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 | SPLG | IWM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.02% | 0.19% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $95.7B | $79.9B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 504 | 1,961 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 11,823,121 | 35,289,965 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.3% | 18.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -3% | -11.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.30 | 1.13 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.01 | 1.20 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
SPLG and IWM share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
SPLG is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 58.97% of the fund, against 5.96% for IWM (503 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.
503 holdings are unique to SPLG and 1950 to IWM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, SPLG or IWM?
IWM currently has more reported holdings, with 1,950 positions versus 503.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SPLG 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?
SPLG has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
SPLG currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 64 to 57.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SPLG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPLG | 64 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWM | Value 32 vs 51 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | SPLG | Risk Resilience 100 vs 75 |
| 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 SPLG 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 7 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 SPLG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4SPLG lead: Reversed — IWM led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SPLG now leads by 7.
- Today
- SPLG +7
- 64 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- SPLG +5
- 64 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- IWM +5
- 64 vs 69
- 90 sessions ago
- IWM +4
- 64 vs 68
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when SPLG 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.
No active signals
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%)
IWM is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.28%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPLG's edge.
- 2IWM's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SPLG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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.
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | SPLG | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | — | -1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | — | -1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | — | 1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | — | 15% |
| Year to date | — | 19.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | 26.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SPLG | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | — | 34 |
| ADX (14) | — | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | — | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | — | 8.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | — | 12.8% |
Risk
SPLG is the more resilient| Metric | SPLG | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.01 | 1.2 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.3 | 1.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.96 | 1.92 |
| Max drawdown | -3% | -11.2% |
| Current drawdown | -1.1% | -3.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.3% | 18.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.7% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SPLG or IWM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SPLG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 64 against IWM's 57. The edge comes from risk resilience. IWM is not without a case — it holds the better value profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 SPLG or IWM the better buy right now?
SPLG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SPLG over IWM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SPLG leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; IWM leads Value by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, SPLG or IWM?
IWM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IWM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points. 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, SPLG or IWM?
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, SPLG or IWM?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, SPLG or IWM?
SPLG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SPLG on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 SPLG more profitable than IWM?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is SPLG's lead over IWM getting stronger or weaker?
SPLG lead: Reversed — IWM led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SPLG now leads by 7. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when SPLG moved ahead of IWM.
What would change the SPLG vs IWM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IWM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPLG's edge; IWM's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; SPLG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 SPLG and IWM?
SPLG: No active signals. IWM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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. On IWM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SPLG and IWM 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.