IWM vs VB
iShares Russell 2000 ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF
Which is better, IWM or VB?
Nearly the same fund. VB costs less.
VB has a lower expense ratio. IWM led over 1Y and 3Y, VB over 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IWM is less concentrated, with 3.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 4.3%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IWM | VB |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.19% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $79.0B | $79.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.91% | 1.21% |
| Holdings | 1,996 | 1,319 |
| YTD Return | +15.57%Best | +12.05% |
| 1Y Return | +18.04%Best | +14.41% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.87%Best | +17.21% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.97% | +7.44%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.6% | 18.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -59.9%Best | -61.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,006 | $14,316Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 3.2%Best | 4.3% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Jan 26, 2004 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 30, 2004 to Sep 21, 2026 (22.6 years).
IWM vs VB growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 22.6 years both funds cover.
IWM vs VB Performance
iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF (VB) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IWM returned +18.04% while VB returned +14.41%. Year to date, IWM is up 15.57% versus a gain of 12.05% for VB.
Over three years, IWM compounded at +18.87% per year against +17.21% for VB; over five years the annualized figures are +6.97% and +7.44% respectively. Across the full 23-year window we track, VB has the edge at +8.57% annualized vs +7.63%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.6% compared with 18.9% for VB. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -59.9% for IWM and -61.0% for VB. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWM charges 0.19% per year while VB charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $19 vs $3 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWM currently yields 0.91% against 1.21% for VB.
Holdings Overlap
67.0% of IWM's money is in holdings VB also owns. 24.9% of VB's money is in holdings IWM also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
674 positions in common, counted across the 1,956 positions we hold weights for in IWM and 1,302 in VB, against full books of 1,996 and 1,319.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 603 positions for VB that do not appear in our book for IWM (69.7% of the fund), and 1,025 for IWM that do not appear in VB (29.5%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IWM | Weight in VB | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MOG.AMoog Inccommon Stock | 0.37% | 0.14% | 0.23% |
| CYTKCytokinetics Inc | 0.33% | 0.14% | 0.19% |
| VSATViasat Inc | 0.32% | 0.14% | 0.18% |
| BTSGBrightspring Health | 0.32% | 0.14% | 0.18% |
| UMBFUmb Financial Corp. | 0.34% | 0.12% | 0.22% |
| ONBOld National Bancorp/In Common Stock | 0.30% | 0.11% | 0.19% |
| GKOSGlaukos Corp. | 0.31% | 0.09% | 0.22% |
| EATBrinker International, Inc. | 0.31% | 0.09% | 0.22% |
| COMPSturm Ruger & Company Inc. | 0.29% | 0.11% | 0.18% |
| CTRECaretrust Reit Inc Reit Usd.01 | 0.29% | 0.11% | 0.18% |
67.0% of IWM is already inside VB.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IWM or VB?
IWM has an expense ratio of 0.19% while VB charges 0.03%. VB is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWM or VB?
Over the past year IWM returned +18.04% vs +14.41% for VB, so IWM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (23 years), IWM annualized +7.63% vs +8.57% for VB. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWM or VB?
IWM has been the more volatile fund at 19.6% annualized versus 18.9% for VB. Worst drawdown: IWM -59.9% vs VB -61.0%.
Should I hold both IWM and VB?
IWM and VB have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IWM and VB?
67.0% of IWM's money is in holdings VB also owns. 24.9% of VB's is in holdings IWM also owns. They hold 674 positions in common, counted across the 1,956 positions we hold weights for in IWM and 1,302 in VB.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWM or VB?
IWM yields 0.91% while VB yields 1.21%, so VB currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VB better than IWM?
VB has a lower expense ratio. IWM led over 1Y and 3Y, VB over 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IWM is less concentrated, with 3.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 4.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.