Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
IWC vs TLT: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, IWC returned +16.5% to TLT's −7.9%; 0% of their weight is in the same names.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about IWC and TLT
Net assets on Oct 27, 2026: $1.2bn for iShares Micro-Cap ETF and $47.4bn for iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF.
Pair scorecard
TLT costs 0.45 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 24.4 points; TLT is far larger, $47.4bn against $1.2bn.
| Measure | IWC | TLT |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +16.5% | −7.9% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 9.5%, high on Aug 14, 2026 | 42.6%, high on Aug 4, 2020 |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | Russell Microcap Index | ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.60% | 0.15% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 27, 2026 | $1.2bn | $47.4bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 0% | |
| In the S&P 500, by weight | 92% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 5.9% | |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Oct 27, 2026. Method
Risk and return
Aug 26, 2005 to Oct 23, 2026 · 1,104 weekly returnsEach against its own benchmark: IWC against IWV, Aug 26, 2005 to Oct 23, 2026; TLT against BBLB, Apr 28, 2023 to Oct 23, 2026.
IWC returned more: +348.0% to +71.5%. TLT swung less: 13.8% to 23.7%. TLT fell less at its worst: −47.8% to −63.8%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | IWC | TLT | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +348.0% | +71.5% | IWC | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +7.3% | +2.6% | IWC | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +254.5% | −13.9% | IWC | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 23.7% | 13.8% | TLT | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 16.8% | 9.7% | TLT | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −63.8% | −47.8% | TLT | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 118.0% | 102.4% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 111.7% | 101.2% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 1.16 | 1.01 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 0.76 | 1.00 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 0.34 | 0.12 | IWC | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 0.48 | 0.17 | IWC | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | 0.070 | −0.072 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.11 | 0.05 | IWC | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | IWV | BBLB | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | −3.6% a year | 0.0% a year | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | −1.41 | −0.01 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −8.5% to +1.4% | −0.8% to +0.8% | Includes zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. |
| Information ratio | −0.16 | −0.10 | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 12.0% | 0.7% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 1,104 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, IWC and TLT 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
IWC and TLT on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWC and TLT do different jobs. What does each one do in a portfolio?
- What each follows. IWC follows Russell Microcap Index and TLT follows ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index.
- Holdings in common. 0% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated Oct 27, 2026).
- One-year total return. Over 1 year to Oct 28, 2026 IWC returned +16.5% and TLT −7.9% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 24.4 points.
Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +16.5% with distributions reinvested, against +13.3% for its benchmark, the Russell 3000 Index.
IWC tracks the Russell Microcap. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.60% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1,365 positions, with the top ten at 5.9%. It sat 9.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.
TLT
TLT tracks an index of 20+ year Treasuries. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned −7.9% with distributions reinvested, against −7.8% for its benchmark, the ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. It sat 42.6% below its high of Aug 4, 2020 on Oct 28, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWC or TLT?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWC returned +16.5% and TLT −7.9%.
- Which is cheaper, IWC or TLT?
- TLT is cheaper, by 0.45 percentage points a year. That is about $45 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, IWC against TLT, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwc-vs-tlt
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). IWC against TLT. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwc-vs-tlt
[IWC against TLT (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwc-vs-tlt)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.