IWM vs OMFS
iShares Russell 2000 ETF vs Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF
Which is better, IWM or OMFS?
Nearly the same fund. IWM costs less.
IWM has a lower expense ratio. IWM led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y, OMFS over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWM is less concentrated, with 3.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 12.0%.
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 | IWM | OMFS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.19%Best | 0.39% |
| AUM | $76.0B | $264M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.98% | 1.30% |
| Holdings | 1,972 | 2,228 |
| YTD Return | +9.82%Best | +8.89% |
| 1Y Return | +10.58%Best | +10.32% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.51%Best | +14.55% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.03%Best | +4.67% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.7% | 21.3%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -42.3%Best | -42.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $12,781Best | $12,564 |
| Top 10 Weight | 3.5%Best | 12.0% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Nov 8, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 10, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (8.9 years).
IWM vs OMFS 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 8.9 years both funds cover.
IWM vs OMFS Performance
iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF (OMFS) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year IWM returned +10.58% while OMFS returned +10.32%. Year to date, IWM is up 9.82% versus a gain of 8.89% for OMFS.
Over three years, IWM compounded at +17.51% per year against +14.55% for OMFS; over five years the annualized figures are +5.03% and +4.67% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, OMFS has the edge at +9.11% annualized vs +7.97%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.7% compared with 21.3% for OMFS. 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 -42.3% for IWM and -42.5% for OMFS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWM charges 0.19% per year while OMFS charges 0.39%. On a $10,000 position that is $19 vs $39 annually, a gap of $20 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWM currently yields 0.98% against 1.30% for OMFS.
Holdings Overlap
63.9% of IWM's money is in holdings OMFS also owns. 95.1% of OMFS's money is in holdings IWM also owns.
Most of OMFS is already inside IWM. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
919 positions in common, counted across the 1,973 positions we hold weights for in IWM and 933 in OMFS, against full books of 1,972 and 2,228.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 3 positions for OMFS that do not appear in our book for IWM (0.5% of the fund), and 814 for IWM that do not appear in OMFS (33.8%).
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 IWM | Weight in OMFS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CTRECaretrust Reit Inc Reit Usd.01 | 0.29% | 1.64% | 1.35% |
| FCFSFirstcash Inc | 0.29% | 1.53% | 1.24% |
| SSRMSsr Mining Inc | 0.24% | 1.42% | 1.18% |
| EATBrinker Intl Inc | 0.28% | 1.15% | 0.87% |
| TRNOTerreno Realty Corp | 0.23% | 1.17% | 0.94% |
| MYRGMyrgroupinc. | 0.16% | 1.20% | 1.04% |
| SLABSilicon Laboratories Inc | 0.25% | 1.10% | 0.85% |
| KRYSKrystal Biotech Inc | 0.28% | 0.98% | 0.70% |
| VCTRVictory Receivables Corp | 0.16% | 0.92% | 0.76% |
| AAMIAcadian Asset Management Inc | 0.10% | 0.91% | 0.81% |
95.1% of OMFS 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, IWM or OMFS?
IWM has an expense ratio of 0.19% while OMFS charges 0.39%. IWM is the cheaper option, by $20 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWM or OMFS?
Over the past year IWM returned +10.58% vs +10.32% for OMFS, so IWM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), IWM annualized +7.97% vs +9.11% for OMFS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWM or OMFS?
IWM has been the more volatile fund at 21.7% annualized versus 21.3% for OMFS. Worst drawdown: IWM -42.3% vs OMFS -42.5%.
Should I hold both IWM and OMFS?
IWM and OMFS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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 IWM and OMFS?
95.1% of OMFS's money is in holdings IWM also owns. 95.1% of OMFS's is in holdings IWM also owns. They hold 919 positions in common, counted across the 1,973 positions we hold weights for in IWM and 933 in OMFS.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWM or OMFS?
IWM yields 0.98% while OMFS yields 1.30%, so OMFS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is OMFS better than IWM?
IWM has a lower expense ratio. IWM led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y, OMFS over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWM is less concentrated, with 3.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 12.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.