Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

BWET vs IWC: how they differ

BWET is a commodity fund and IWC an equity index fund, and over the year BWET returned more, +5129.6% against +31.3%.

Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF and iShares Micro-Cap ETF.

BWET and IWC on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
BWET
Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF
IWC
iShares Micro-Cap ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerBreakwaveiShares
What it isTanker ShippingRussell Microcap
Total return, 1 year+5129.6%+31.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+5112.1 pts+13.8 pts

BWET in plain words

BWET is a commodity fund tracking the Tanker Shipping. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +5129.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100.

IWC in plain words

IWC is an index equity fund tracking the Russell Microcap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +31.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. It sat 5.0% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, BWET or IWC?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, BWET returned +5129.6% and IWC returned +31.3%, so BWET returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

BWET against IWC, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, BWET against IWC, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/BWET-IWC Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources