Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IWM vs VGLT: how they differ
IWM is an equity index fund and VGLT a bond index fund, and over the year IWM returned more, +21.2% against −5.4%.
iShares Russell 2000 ETF and Vanguard Long-Term Treasury Index Fund.
| IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | VGLT Vanguard Long-Term Treasury Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | Russell 2000 | Long-term Treasury |
| Total return, 1 year | +21.2% | −5.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +3.7 pts | −22.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | not published |
| Holdings | 2014 | not filed |
IWM in plain words
IWM is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 2000. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% 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%. It sat 5.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
VGLT in plain words
VGLT is a bond fund tracking the Long-term Treasury. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −5.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. It sat 39.2% below its high of Aug 4, 2020 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWM or VGLT?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +21.2% and VGLT returned −5.4%, so IWM 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, IWM against VGLT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWM-VGLT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources