Which returned more over the last year, IWM or LQD?

In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +21.2% and LQD returned −2.7%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.

Which is cheaper, IWM or LQD?

IWM charges 0.19% a year and LQD charges 0.14%, so LQD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

IWM vs LQD: how they differ

IWM and LQD hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and IWM returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 2000 ETF and iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWM and LQD hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWM	Only in LQD
MOOG INC CLASS A 0.34%	BLK CSH FND TREASURY SL AGENCY 0.88%
UMB FINANCIAL 0.34%	ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES LLC 0.12%
CYTOKINETICS 0.32%	DEUTSCHE TELEKOM INTERNATIONAL FIN 0.11%
GLAUKOS 0.32%	CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING L 144A 0.10%
JFROG 0.32%	JPMORGAN CHASE & CO MTN 0.09%
BRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES INC 0.31%	BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC 0.08%
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC 0.31%	MORGAN STANLEY (FXD-FRN) MTN 0.08%
FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS INC 0.31%	CITIGROUP INC (FX-FRN) 0.07%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Sep 10, 2026.

IWM and LQD on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
	IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
Where it sits	Core index fund	Core index fund
Issuer	iShares	iShares
What it is	Russell 2000	US investment grade bonds
Total return, 1 year	+21.2%	−2.7%
S&P 500 over the same days	+17.5%	+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500	+3.7 pts	−20.2 pts
Expense ratio	0.19%	0.14%
Holdings	1749	3149

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 Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1749 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%. It sat 5.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

LQD in plain words

LQD is a bond fund tracking the US investment grade bonds. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −2.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.14% a year. It sat 6.4% below its high of Sep 22, 2021 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWM or LQD?: In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +21.2% and LQD returned −2.7%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWM or LQD?: IWM charges 0.19% a year and LQD charges 0.14%, so LQD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.

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.

IWM against LQD, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 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, IWM against LQD, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwm-vs-lqd Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources