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

IWC vs MBB: how they differ

IWC is an equity index fund and MBB a bond index fund, and over the year IWC returned more, +31.3% against −0.1%.

iShares Micro-Cap ETF and iShares MBS ETF.

IWC and MBB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWC
iShares Micro-Cap ETF
MBB
iShares MBS ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isRussell MicrocapMbs
Total return, 1 year+31.3%−0.1%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+13.8 pts−17.6 pts
Expense rationot published0.04%
Holdingsnot filed11144

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.

MBB in plain words

MBB is a bond fund tracking the Mbs. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −0.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. It sat 3.3% below its high of Feb 27, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWC or MBB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWC returned +31.3% and MBB returned −0.1%, so IWC 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources