Data as of Sep 4, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
BND vs IWM
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund and iShares Russell 2000 ETF.
| BND Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund | IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core fund | Core fund |
| Issuer | Vanguard | 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 | −18.7 pts | +6.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.19% |
| Holdings | n/a | 2014 |
BND in plain words
BND 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, BND or IWM?
- In the year to Sep 4, 2026, with distributions reinvested, BND 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, BND or IWM?
- BND charges 0.03% a year and IWM charges 0.19%, so BND is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Cite this page. ETFIQ, BND against IWM, data as of Sep 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/BND-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