AFSM vs IWM
First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF
Which is better, AFSM or IWM?
Nearly the same fund. IWM costs less.
IWM has a lower expense ratio. AFSM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. IWM is less concentrated, with 3.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 8.4%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AFSM | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.19%Best |
| AUM | $130M | $76.0B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.52% | 0.98% |
| Holdings | 657 | 1,972 |
| YTD Return | +19.57%Best | +9.82% |
| 1Y Return | +23.10%Best | +10.58% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.42%Best | +17.51% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.06%Best | +5.03% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.8%Best | 22.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -43.5% | -41.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,429Best | $12,781 |
| Top 10 Weight | 8.4% | 3.5%Best |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 4, 2019 | May 22, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 4, 2019 to Oct 14, 2026 (6.9 years).
AFSM vs IWM growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 6.9 years both funds cover.
AFSM vs IWM Performance
First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF (AFSM) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year AFSM returned +23.10% while IWM returned +10.58%. Year to date, AFSM is up 19.57% versus a gain of 9.82% for IWM.
Over three years, AFSM compounded at +19.42% per year against +17.51% for IWM; over five years the annualized figures are +9.06% and +5.03% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, AFSM has the edge at +11.04% annualized vs +9.01%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.7% compared with 21.8% for AFSM. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -43.5% for AFSM and -41.1% for IWM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AFSM charges 0.75% per year while IWM charges 0.19%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $19 annually, a gap of $56 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AFSM currently yields 0.52% against 0.98% for IWM.
Holdings Overlap
79.5% of AFSM's money is in holdings IWM also owns. 21.0% of IWM's money is in holdings AFSM also owns.
Most of AFSM is already inside IWM. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
259 positions in common, counted across the 321 positions we hold weights for in AFSM and 1,973 in IWM, against full books of 657 and 1,972.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,444 positions for IWM that do not appear in our book for AFSM (76.0% of the fund), and 52 for AFSM that do not appear in IWM (16.8%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in AFSM | Weight in IWM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| PARRPar Petroleum Corp | 1.17% | 0.14% | 1.03% |
| MATXMatson Inc | 0.90% | 0.23% | 0.67% |
| NHCNational Healthcare Corporation | 0.96% | 0.10% | 0.86% |
| PTGXProtagonist Therapeutics Inc | 0.71% | 0.29% | 0.42% |
| ANFAbercrombie & Fitch Co. Class A | 0.78% | 0.20% | 0.58% |
| TNKTeekay Tankers Ltd Common Stock Temp Line | 0.84% | 0.08% | 0.76% |
| PENG:KYPenguin Solutions Inc | 0.83% | 0.09% | 0.74% |
| TWSTTwist Bioscience Corp. | 0.47% | 0.42% | 0.05% |
| BTSGBrightspring Health Services Inc | 0.56% | 0.32% | 0.24% |
| TXG10x Genomics Inc Com Usd 1 Cl A | 0.52% | 0.35% | 0.17% |
79.5% of AFSM is already inside IWM.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, AFSM or IWM?
AFSM has an expense ratio of 0.75% while IWM charges 0.19%. IWM is the cheaper option, by $56 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, AFSM or IWM?
Over the past year AFSM returned +23.10% vs +10.58% for IWM, so AFSM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), AFSM annualized +11.04% vs +9.01% for IWM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, AFSM or IWM?
IWM has been the more volatile fund at 22.7% annualized versus 21.8% for AFSM. Worst drawdown: AFSM -43.5% vs IWM -41.1%.
Should I hold both AFSM and IWM?
AFSM and IWM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between AFSM and IWM?
79.5% of AFSM's money is in holdings IWM also owns. 21.0% of IWM's is in holdings AFSM also owns. They hold 259 positions in common, counted across the 321 positions we hold weights for in AFSM and 1,973 in IWM.
Which pays a higher dividend, AFSM or IWM?
AFSM yields 0.52% while IWM yields 0.98%, so IWM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWM better than AFSM?
IWM has a lower expense ratio. AFSM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. IWM is less concentrated, with 3.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 8.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.