Data as of Sep 4, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
AGG vs IWM
iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF and iShares Russell 2000 ETF.
| AGG iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF | IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core fund | Core fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | US aggregate bonds | Russell 2000 |
| Total return, 1 year | +1.3% | +26.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +20.0% | +20.0% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −18.6 pts | +6.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.19% |
| Holdings | n/a | 2014 |
AGG in plain words
AGG is a bond fund tracking US aggregate bonds. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 it returned +1.3% with distributions reinvested, against +20.0% for the S&P 500 and +25.6% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year.
IWM in plain words
IWM is a index equity fund tracking Russell 2000. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 it returned +26.4% with distributions reinvested, against +20.0% for the S&P 500 and +25.6% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.19% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2014 positions, with the top ten at 3.4%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, AGG or IWM?
- In the year to Sep 4, 2026, with distributions reinvested, AGG returned +1.3% and IWM returned +26.4%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, AGG or IWM?
- AGG charges 0.03% a year and IWM charges 0.19%, so AGG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Cite this page. ETFIQ, AGG against IWM, data as of Sep 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/AGG-IWM.html Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. ETFIQ publishes the same fields for every fund and suggests no allocation. Standards and sources