Screener
BMED vs IWN
iShares Health Innovation Active ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF
Key differences
- IWN costs 0.31% less per year.
- IWN is significantly larger than BMED — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- BMED follows a active selection strategy; IWN uses index tracking.
- Over the last 3 years, IWN has delivered higher annualized returns.
- IWN has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| BMED | IWN | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.55% | 0.24% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $10M | $13.4B |
| Since | 2020 | 2000 |
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 1.49% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | active selection | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +18.7% | +46.8% |
| CAGR 3Y | +4.8% | +19.5% |
| CAGR 5Y | +0.1% | +7.8% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.16 | 0.80 |
| Volatility 1Y | 14.93% | 17.92% |
| Max drawdown | -36.44% | -46.08% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to BMED and IWN
Explore further