IWM vs VTI
iShares Russell 2000 ETF vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IWM delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 2783 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IWM | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.19% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $79.5B | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.88% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 1,996 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +22.18% | +14.22% | |
| 1Y Return | +34.85% | +22.19% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.08% | +21.27% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.62% | +12.23% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.0% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -59.9% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | May 24, 2001 |
IWM vs VTI Performance
iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IWM returned +34.85% while VTI returned +22.19%. Year to date, IWM is up 22.18% versus a gain of 14.22% for VTI.
Over three years, IWM compounded at +18.08% per year against +21.27% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +7.62% and +12.23% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.14% annualized vs +7.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.0% compared with 15.3% for VTI. 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 -56.6% for VTI. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.91. 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 VTI 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 0.88% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
IWM and VTI share 1118 holdings out of 3259 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.3% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IWM or VTI?
IWM has an expense ratio of 0.19% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $16 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IWM or VTI?
Over the past year IWM returned +34.85% vs +22.19% for VTI, so IWM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), IWM annualized +7.75% vs +8.14% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IWM or VTI?
IWM has been the more volatile fund at 20.0% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: IWM -59.9% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both IWM and VTI?
IWM and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between IWM and VTI?
IWM and VTI share 1118 common holdings with a 0.3% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 3259 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWM or VTI?
IWM yields 0.88% while VTI yields 1.07%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.