The iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and the iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) are both among the Top 100 ETFs. IWM is a iShares Small Blend fund and IWB is a iShares Large Blend fund. So, what’s the difference between IWM and IWB? And which fund is better?
The expense ratio of IWM is 0.04 percentage points higher than IWB’s (0.19% vs. 0.15%). IWM also has a higher exposure to the healthcare sector and a higher standard deviation. Overall, IWM has provided lower returns than IWB over the past ten years.
In this article, we’ll compare IWM vs. IWB. We’ll look at portfolio growth and fund composition, as well as at their annual returns and industry exposure. Moreover, I’ll also discuss IWM’s and IWB’s holdings, performance, and risk metrics and examine how these affect their overall returns.
|Name||iShares Russell 2000 ETF||iShares Russell 1000 ETF|
|Category||Small Blend||Large Blend|
The iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is a Small Blend fund that is issued by iShares. It currently has 66.48B total assets under management and has yielded an average annual return of 13.52% over the past 10 years. The fund has a dividend yield of 0.86% with an expense ratio of 0.19%.
The iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is a Large Blend fund that is issued by iShares. It currently has 30.54B total assets under management and has yielded an average annual return of 14.64% over the past 10 years. The fund has a dividend yield of 1.14% with an expense ratio of 0.15%.
IWM’s dividend yield is 0.28% lower than that of IWB (0.86% vs. 1.14%). Also, IWM yielded on average 1.11% less per year over the past decade (13.52% vs. 14.64%). The expense ratio of IWM is 0.04 percentage points higher than IWB’s (0.19% vs. 0.15%).
The iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has the most exposure to the Healthcare sector at 20.3%. This is followed by Industrials and Technology at 14.78% and 14.21% respectively. Consumer Defensive (3.65%), Basic Materials (3.74%), and Energy (3.74%) only make up 11.13% of the fund’s total assets.
IWM’s mid-section with moderate exposure is comprised of Communication Services, Real Estate, Consumer Cyclical, Financial Services, and Technology stocks at 3.79%, 8.59%, 10.99%, 13.76%, and 14.21%.
The iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) has the most exposure to the Technology sector at 25.33%. This is followed by Financial Services and Healthcare at 13.64% and 13.35% respectively. Utilities (2.36%), Energy (2.44%), and Real Estate (3.34%) only make up 8.14% of the fund’s total assets.
IWB’s mid-section with moderate exposure is comprised of Consumer Defensive, Industrials, Communication Services, Consumer Cyclical, and Healthcare stocks at 5.97%, 8.88%, 10.83%, 11.85%, and 13.35%.
IWM is 6.95% more exposed to the Healthcare sector than IWB (20.3% vs 13.35%). IWM’s exposure to Industrials and Technology stocks is 5.90% higher and 11.12% lower respectively (14.78% vs. 8.88% and 14.21% vs. 25.33%). In total, Consumer Defensive, Basic Materials, and Energy also make up 0.70% more of the fund’s holdings compared to IWB (11.13% vs. 10.43%).
|AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc Class A||0.52%|
|Intellia Therapeutics Inc||0.33%|
|BlackRock Cash Funds Treasury SL Agency||0.29%|
|Tenet Healthcare Corp||0.26%|
|Lattice Semiconductor Corp||0.26%|
|Tetra Tech Inc||0.25%|
|EastGroup Properties Inc||0.24%|
|Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals Inc||0.24%|
IWM’s Top Holdings are AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc Class A, Intellia Therapeutics Inc, Crocs Inc, BlackRock Cash Funds Treasury SL Agency, and Tenet Healthcare Corp at 0.52%, 0.33%, 0.3%, 0.29%, and 0.26%.
Lattice Semiconductor Corp (0.26%), Tetra Tech Inc (0.25%), and II-VI Inc (0.25%) have a slightly smaller but still significant weight. EastGroup Properties Inc and Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals Inc are also represented in the IWM’s holdings at 0.24% and 0.24%.
|Facebook Inc Class A||2.03%|
|Alphabet Inc Class A||1.93%|
|Alphabet Inc Class C||1.82%|
|Berkshire Hathaway Inc Class B||1.24%|
|JPMorgan Chase & Co||1.09%|
IWB’s Top Holdings are Apple Inc, Microsoft Corp, Amazon.com Inc, Facebook Inc Class A, and Alphabet Inc Class A at 5.45%, 5.11%, 3.43%, 2.03%, and 1.93%.
Alphabet Inc Class C (1.82%), Tesla Inc (1.27%), and Berkshire Hathaway Inc Class B (1.24%) have a slightly smaller but still significant weight. NVIDIA Corp and JPMorgan Chase & Co are also represented in the IWB’s holdings at 1.11% and 1.09%.
The iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a R-squared of 77.73 with a Treynor Ratio of 9.56 and a Beta of 1.23. Its Standard Deviation is 18.87 while IWM’s Sharpe Ratio is 0.68. Furthermore, the fund has a Alpha of -5.12 and a Mean Return of 1.12.
The iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) has a R-squared of 99.73 with a Treynor Ratio of 14.31 and a Beta of 1.02. Its Alpha is -0.38 while IWB’s Sharpe Ratio is 1.05. Furthermore, the fund has a Mean Return of 1.27 and a Standard Deviation of 13.87.
IWM’s Mean Return is 0.15 points lower than that of IWB and its R-squared is 22.00 points lower. With a Standard Deviation of 18.87, IWM is slightly more volatile than IWB. The Alpha and Beta of IWM are 4.74 points lower and 0.21 points higher than IWB’s Alpha and Beta.
IWM had its best year in 2013 with an annual return of 38.85%. IWM’s worst year over the past decade yielded -11.02% and occurred in 2018. In most years the iShares Russell 2000 ETF provided moderate returns such as in 2017, 2012, and 2020 where annual returns amounted to 14.66%, 16.39%, and 19.89% respectively.
The year 2013 was the strongest year for IWB, returning 32.93% on an annual basis. The poorest year for IWB in the last ten years was 2018, with a yield of -4.91%. Most years the iShares Russell 1000 ETF has given investors modest returns, such as in 2014, 2010, and 2012, when gains were 13.08%, 15.94%, and 16.27% respectively.
|Fund||Initial Balance||Final Balance||CAGR|
A $10,000 investment in IWM would have resulted in a final balance of $36,686. This is a profit of $26,686 over 11 years and amounts to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.52%.
With a $10,000 investment in IWB, the end total would have been $42,462. This equates to a $32,462 profit over 11 years and a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.64%.
IWM’s CAGR is 1.11 percentage points lower than that of IWB and as a result, would have yielded $5,776 less on a $10,000 investment. Thus, IWM performed worse than IWB by 1.11% annually.
Over the past years, I have discovered several tools and products that have helped me tremendously on my path to financial freedom:
P.S.: The links below are affiliate links, which means I receive a small commission at no extra cost to you when you sign up for one of the services. Thank you for your support!
1)Personal Capital is simply the best tool out there to track your net worth and plan for financial freedom. Just their retirement planner alone has become an invaluable tool to keep myself on track financially. Try it out, it's free!
2) Take a look at M1 Finance, my favorite broker. I love how easy it is to invest and maintain my portfolio with them. I can set up automatic transfers, rebalance my portfolio with one click and even borrow up to 35% of my assets at super low interest rates!
3) Fundrise is by far the best way I've found to invest in Real Estate. You can diversify your portfolio by investing in their eREITs or even allocate capital to individual properties (without the hassle of managing tenants!).
4) Groundfloor is another great way to get exposure to the real estate sector by investing in short-term, high-yield real estate debt. Current returns are >10% and you can get started with just $10.
5) If you are interested in startup investing, check out Mainvest. I've started allocating a small amount of assets to invest in and support small businesses. Return targets are between 10-25% and you can start with just $100!
To see all of my most up-to-date recommendations, check out the Recommended Tools section.