FSCC vs IWM
Federated Hermes MDT Small Cap Core ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF
Which is better, FSCC or IWM?
Nearly the same fund. IWM costs less.
IWM has a lower expense ratio. FSCC led over 1Y 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 11.8%.
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 | FSCC | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.36% | 0.19%Best |
| AUM | $427M | $76.0B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.24% | 0.98% |
| Holdings | 622 | 1,972 |
| YTD Return | +10.38%Best | +9.82% |
| 1Y Return | +12.30%Best | +10.58% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +17.51% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +5.03% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.4% | 17.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -27.2%Best | -27.5% |
| $10,000 over 2.2 years | $13,065Best | $12,417 |
| Top 10 Weight | 11.8% | 3.5%Best |
| Fund Family | Federated Hermes | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 30, 2024 | May 22, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 31, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.2 years).
FSCC 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 2.2 years both funds cover.
FSCC vs IWM Performance
Federated Hermes MDT Small Cap Core ETF (FSCC) is an ETF from Federated Hermes and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FSCC returned +12.30% while IWM returned +10.58%. Year to date, FSCC is up 10.38% versus a gain of 9.82% for IWM.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FSCC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.4% compared with 17.5% for IWM. 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 -27.2% for FSCC and -27.5% 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
FSCC charges 0.36% per year while IWM charges 0.19%. On a $10,000 position that is $36 vs $19 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FSCC currently yields 0.24% against 0.98% for IWM.
Holdings Overlap
85.9% of FSCC's money is in holdings IWM also owns. 23.7% of IWM's money is in holdings FSCC also owns.
Most of FSCC is already inside IWM. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
275 positions in common, counted across the 310 positions we hold weights for in FSCC and 1,973 in IWM, against full books of 622 and 1,972.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,427 positions for IWM that do not appear in our book for FSCC (73.0% of the fund), and 30 for FSCC that do not appear in IWM (12.3%).
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 FSCC | Weight in IWM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIC3.AI Inc-A | 1.28% | 0.05% | 1.23% |
| PSTLPostal Realty Trust Inc- A Common Stock | 1.27% | 0.02% | 1.25% |
| SLDESlide Insurance Holdings, Inc. | 1.11% | 0.05% | 1.06% |
| HGHamilton Insurance Group Ltd. Class B | 1.11% | 0.05% | 1.06% |
| MSGEMadison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. | 1.02% | 0.12% | 0.90% |
| BKUBankunited Inc | 1.01% | 0.10% | 0.91% |
| BTSGBrightspring Health | 0.79% | 0.32% | 0.47% |
| CNOCno Financial Group Inc | 0.95% | 0.16% | 0.79% |
| BYByline Bancorp, Inc. | 1.05% | 0.04% | 1.01% |
| KLICKulicke & Soffa Industries | 0.90% | 0.17% | 0.73% |
85.9% of FSCC 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, FSCC or IWM?
FSCC has an expense ratio of 0.36% while IWM charges 0.19%. IWM is the cheaper option, by $17 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FSCC or IWM?
Over the past year FSCC returned +12.30% vs +10.58% for IWM, so FSCC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), FSCC annualized +12.92% vs +10.34% for IWM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FSCC or IWM?
FSCC has been the more volatile fund at 18.4% annualized versus 17.5% for IWM. Worst drawdown: FSCC -27.2% vs IWM -27.5%.
Should I hold both FSCC and IWM?
FSCC 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 FSCC and IWM?
85.9% of FSCC's money is in holdings IWM also owns. 23.7% of IWM's is in holdings FSCC also owns. They hold 275 positions in common, counted across the 310 positions we hold weights for in FSCC and 1,973 in IWM.
Which pays a higher dividend, FSCC or IWM?
FSCC yields 0.24% while IWM yields 0.98%, so IWM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWM better than FSCC?
IWM has a lower expense ratio. FSCC led over 1Y 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 11.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.