Screener
IHF vs IWM
iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF
Key differences
- IWM costs 0.19% less per year.
- IWM is significantly larger than IHF — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- Over the last 3 years, IWM has delivered higher annualized returns.
- IWM has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| IHF | IWM | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.38% | 0.19% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $777M | $76.9B |
| Since | 2006 | 2000 |
| Dividend yield | 1.11% | 0.91% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +7.9% | +41.8% |
| CAGR 3Y | +1.4% | +18.8% |
| CAGR 5Y | -0.0% | +6.5% |
| Sharpe 3Y | -0.01 | 0.75 |
| Volatility 1Y | 21.56% | 19.22% |
| Max drawdown | -35.23% | -41.13% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to IHF and IWM
Explore further