Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
ACRT vs IWM: Differences, Returns & Fees
ACRT and IWM are measured over different days, and IWM charges 0.19% to ACRT's 0.72%.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about ACRT and IWM
Net assets: $1.5m on Oct 28, 2026 for ProShares Russell 2000 Autocallable Income ETF, and $75.5bn on Oct 27, 2026 for iShares Russell 2000 ETF.
Pair scorecard
IWM costs 0.53 points a year less; IWM is far larger, $75.5bn against $1.5m.
| Measure | ACRT | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | not published | +14.1% |
| Cash paid, share of starting value, since Aug 14, 2026 | 2.2% | |
| Price change, since Aug 14, 2026 | fell 9.9% | |
| Latest payout, annualized | 29.6% | |
| Return of capital, issuer estimate | 92% of the Oct 7, 2026 payment | |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 7.6%, high on Aug 14, 2026 | |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | Benchmark: Russell 2000, measured through IWM | Russell 2000 Index |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.72% | 0.19% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 27, 2026 | $1.5m | $75.5bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 0% | |
| In the S&P 500, by weight | 0% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 3.3% | |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Oct 27, 2026. Method
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, ACRT and IWM hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Oct 27, 2026.
half
0% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
ACRT and IWM on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
No client brief for this pair: ETFIQ prints no one-year total return for ACRT.
ACRT
Over the period from its first trade on Aug 14, 2026 to Oct 28, 2026, ACRT paid 2.2% of its starting value in cash distributions while its price fell 9.9%. With every distribution reinvested, the fund returned −7.6%. Russell 2000 (IWM) returned −7.6% over the same days, so a holder was about even. At its price on Oct 28, 2026 the latest distribution annualizes to 29.6%, paid periodically. ProShares estimates that 92% of the distribution paid Oct 7, 2026 was a return of capital (its 19a-1 notice). That is a tax label, not a measure of erosion.
IWM
IWM tracks the Russell 2000. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +14.1% with distributions reinvested, against +14.3% for its benchmark, the Russell 2000 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.19% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1,977 positions, with the top ten at 3.3%. It sat 7.6% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Are ACRT and IWM in the same category?
- ACRT is an option-income ETF and IWM is a stock ETF, so they do different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and holdings.
- Which is cheaper, ACRT or IWM?
- IWM is cheaper, by 0.53 percentage points a year. That is about $53 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Links are sources, not endorsements. A comparison is not a recommendation.
How this is computed
Overlap adds up the smaller of the two weights for each security both funds hold.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, ACRT against IWM, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/acrt-vs-iwm
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). ACRT against IWM. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/acrt-vs-iwm
[ACRT against IWM (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/acrt-vs-iwm)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.