Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
IWM vs VTWO: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, IWM returned +14.1% to VTWO's +14.3%; 92% of their weight is in the same names.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about IWM and VTWO
Net assets: $75.5bn on Oct 27, 2026 for iShares Russell 2000 ETF, and $16.6bn on Sep 30, 2026 for Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF.
Pair scorecard
VTWO costs 0.13 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 0.2 points; IWM is 4.7 times larger.
| Measure | IWM | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +14.1% | +14.3% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 7.6%, high on Aug 14, 2026 | 7.5%, high on Aug 14, 2026 |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | Russell 2000 Index | Russell 2000 Index |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.06% |
| Net assets, as of Sep 30, 2026 | $78.0bn | $16.6bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 92% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 3.3% | 5.4% |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Sep 30, 2026 and Oct 27, 2026. Method
Risk and return
Oct 1, 2010 to Oct 23, 2026 · 838 weekly returnsEach against its own benchmark: IWM against VTWO, Oct 1, 2010 to Oct 23, 2026; VTWO against IWM, Oct 1, 2010 to Oct 23, 2026.
IWM and VTWO returned about the same: +404.7% and +409.2%. IWM and VTWO swung about the same: 21.2% and 21.0%. IWM and VTWO fell about the same at their worst: −40.2% and −40.2%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | IWM | VTWO | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +404.7% | +409.2% | Tie | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +10.6% | +10.6% | Tie | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +306.4% | +315.9% | VTWO (slight) | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 21.2% | 21.0% | Tie | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 14.6% | 14.5% | Tie | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −40.2% | −40.2% | Tie | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 101.0% | 98.8% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 100.5% | 99.5% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 1.01 | 0.99 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 1.00 | 1.00 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 0.51 | 0.51 | Tie | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 0.73 | 0.74 | Tie | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | 0.106 | 0.108 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.26 | 0.26 | Tie | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | VTWO | IWM | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | −0.1% a year | +0.1% a year | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | −0.36 | 0.46 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −0.6% to +0.4% | −0.4% to +0.6% | 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% | 1.0% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 838 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, IWM and VTWO hold 92% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Sep 30, 2026 and Oct 27, 2026.
half
92% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
IWM and VTWO on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWM and VTWO are built for the same job. How do they differ in cost, holdings and results?
- Cost. IWM charges 0.19% of assets a year and VTWO 0.06%, a gap of 0.13 points.
- Size. IWM has $78.0bn in net assets and VTWO $16.6bn (net assets, as of Sep 30, 2026); IWM is 4.7 times larger.
- What each follows (similar). Both follow Russell 2000 Index.
Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
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.
VTWO
VTWO tracks the Russell 2000. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +14.3% with distributions reinvested, against +14.1% for its benchmark, the Russell 2000 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.06% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer as of Sep 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2,002 positions, with the top ten at 5.4%. It sat 7.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWM or VTWO?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +14.1% and VTWO +14.3%.
- Which is cheaper, IWM or VTWO?
- VTWO is cheaper, by 0.13 percentage points a year. That is about $13 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 VTWO, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwm-vs-vtwo
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). IWM against VTWO. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwm-vs-vtwo
[IWM against VTWO (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwm-vs-vtwo)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.