Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
IWM vs RSSL: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, IWM and RSSL finished level, +14.1% against +14.1%, and they share 82% of their weight.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about IWM and RSSL
Net assets: $75.5bn on Oct 27, 2026 for iShares Russell 2000 ETF, and $1.4bn on Oct 12, 2026 for Global X Russell 2000 ETF.
Pair scorecard
RSSL costs 0.11 points a year less; both returned +14.1% over a year; IWM is far larger, $77.7bn against $1.4bn.
| Measure | IWM | RSSL |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +14.1% | +14.1% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 7.6%, high on Aug 14, 2026 | |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | Russell 2000 Index | Russell 2000 RIC Capped Index |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.08% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 12, 2026 | $77.7bn | $1.4bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 82% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 3.3% | 3.2% |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Oct 27, 2026. Method
Risk and return
Jun 14, 2024 to Oct 23, 2026 · 123 weekly returnsEach against its own benchmark: IWM against VTWO, Oct 1, 2010 to Oct 23, 2026; RSSL against VOO, Jun 14, 2024 to Oct 23, 2026.
IWM and RSSL returned about the same: +42.2% and +42.2%. IWM and RSSL swung about the same: 19.8% and 19.7%. IWM and RSSL fell about the same at their worst: −24.7% and −24.7%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | IWM | RSSL | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +42.2% | +42.2% | Tie | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +16.0% | +16.0% | Tie | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +38.8% | +37.5% | IWM (slight) | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 19.8% | 19.7% | Tie | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 13.2% | 13.2% | Tie | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −24.7% | −24.7% | Tie | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 101.0% | 102.3% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 100.5% | 102.8% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 1.01 | 1.06 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 1.00 | 0.63 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 0.64 | 0.64 | Tie | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 0.96 | 0.96 | Tie | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | 0.106 | 0.119 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.65 | 0.65 | Tie | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | VTWO | VOO | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | −0.1% a year | −0.5% a year | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | −0.36 | −0.07 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −0.6% to +0.4% | −16.2% to +15.1% | Includes zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. |
| Information ratio | −0.02 | 0.02 | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 1.0% | 12.1% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 123 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, IWM and RSSL hold 82% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Oct 27, 2026.
half
82% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
IWM and RSSL on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWM and RSSL are built for the same job. How do they differ in cost, holdings and results?
- What each follows. IWM follows Russell 2000 Index and RSSL follows Russell 2000 RIC Capped Index.
- Cost. IWM charges 0.19% of assets a year and RSSL 0.08%, a gap of 0.11 points.
- Size. IWM has $77.7bn in net assets and RSSL $1.4bn (net assets, as of Oct 12, 2026); IWM is 55.5 times larger.
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.
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.
RSSL
RSSL tracks an index. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +14.1% with distributions reinvested, against +13.7% for its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Jul 31, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1,960 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWM or RSSL?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +14.1% and RSSL +14.1%.
- Which is cheaper, IWM or RSSL?
- RSSL is cheaper, by 0.11 percentage points a year. That is about $11 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, IWM against RSSL, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwm-vs-rssl
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). IWM against RSSL. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwm-vs-rssl
[IWM against RSSL (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwm-vs-rssl)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.