Screener
XCHG vs IWM
Ab US Equity ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF
Key differences
- IWM costs 0.31% less per year.
- IWM is significantly larger than XCHG — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- XCHG follows a active selection strategy; IWM uses index tracking.
- IWM has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| XCHG | IWM | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.50% | 0.19% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $685M | $76.9B |
| Since | 2025 | 2000 |
| Dividend yield | — | 0.91% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | active selection | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | N/A | +41.8% |
| CAGR 3Y | N/A | +18.8% |
| CAGR 5Y | N/A | +6.5% |
| Sharpe 3Y | N/A | 0.75 |
| Volatility 1Y | — | 19.22% |
| Max drawdown | -9.67% | -41.13% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to XCHG and IWM
Explore further