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

In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +21.2% and TLT returned −6.4%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.

Which is cheaper, IWM or TLT?

IWM charges 0.19% a year and TLT charges 0.15%, so TLT 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 TLT: how they differ

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

iShares Russell 2000 ETF and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWM and TLT 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 TLT
MOOG INC CLASS A 0.34%	TREASURY BOND (2OLD) 4.16%
UMB FINANCIAL 0.34%	TREASURY BOND (OLD) 4.05%
CYTOKINETICS 0.32%	TREASURY BOND (OTR) 1.03%
GLAUKOS 0.32%	TREASURY BOND 0.02%
JFROG 0.32%
BRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES INC 0.31%
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC 0.31%
FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS INC 0.31%

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 TLT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
	IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	TLT iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF
Where it sits	Core index fund	Core index fund
Issuer	iShares	iShares
What it is	Russell 2000	20+ year Treasuries
Total return, 1 year	+21.2%	−6.4%
S&P 500 over the same days	+17.5%	+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500	+3.7 pts	−23.9 pts
Expense ratio	0.19%	0.15%
Holdings	1749	41

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.

TLT in plain words

TLT is a bond fund tracking the 20+ year Treasuries. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −6.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. It sat 42.9% below its high of Aug 4, 2020 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWM or TLT?: In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +21.2% and TLT returned −6.4%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWM or TLT?: IWM charges 0.19% a year and TLT charges 0.15%, so TLT 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 TLT, 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 TLT, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwm-vs-tlt Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources