IWM vs VIG: Correlation & Overlap
iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF (VIG) show a very strong relationship: their 3-year correlation of weekly returns is 0.82. The two funds also share 1.0% of their portfolios by weight.
Data as of 2026-08-27 · refreshed every trading day · weekly returns · methodology
How correlated are IWM and VIG?
On 3 years of weekly data the IWM/VIG correlation comes out at 0.82, very strong, meaning they move nearly in lockstep. Recent behaviour matches the longer record: 0.79 over 1 year against 0.82 over 3. The 5-year figure is 0.83, and annualized covariance runs at 192.0 %².
Among the 320 assets we track against IWM, VIG ranks #13 by 3-year correlation. On 12-month performance IWM holds a 11.3-point edge, +28.4% against +17.1%. Stability stands out here, with the rolling one-year correlation confined to 0.70 through 0.90. One caveat on sizing: IWM is 1.7 times as volatile as the other leg, so an equal-dollar split is far from equal-risk.
How is this computed?
Pearson correlation on weekly returns: ρ(A,B) = cov(rA, rB) / (σA · σB), over windows of 52, 156 and 260 weeks. Covariance is annualized (×52) and expressed in %². Full definitions on the methodology page.
IWM vs VIG: side by side
| IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) | VIG (Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-year return | +28.4% | +17.1% |
| 5-year return | +41.5% | +64.0% |
| Volatility (ann.) | 19.8% | 11.9% |
| Beta vs S&P 500 | 1.06 | 0.74 |
| Max drawdown (3Y) | -27.5% | -15.0% |
| Dividend yield | 0.91% | 1.50% |
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.04% |
| Assets under management | $80.1B | $130.9B |
| Sector / category | ETF · US Small & Mid Cap | ETF · Dividend |
IWM is a Small Blend fund from iShares: $80.1B under management, 1757 holdings, a 0.19% expense ratio, a 0.91% trailing dividend yield. VIG, Vanguard's Large Blend fund, carries $130.9B under management, 333 holdings, a 0.04% expense ratio, a 1.50% trailing dividend yield.
Portfolio overlap between IWM and VIG
The two portfolios are largely distinct, with 87 holdings in common adding up to 1.0% of fund weight. Where correlation shows the co-movement, the overlap shows its source.
| Common holding | Weight in IWM | Weight in VIG |
|---|---|---|
| UMBF | 0.34% | 0.05% |
| NPO | 0.21% | 0.03% |
| GATX | 0.20% | 0.03% |
| MATX | 0.21% | 0.03% |
| HOMB | 0.18% | 0.03% |
| TXNM | 0.19% | 0.03% |
| SIGI | 0.18% | 0.02% |
| BCPC | 0.18% | 0.02% |
| CNO | 0.16% | 0.02% |
| UFPI | 0.16% | 0.02% |
| FFIN | 0.14% | 0.02% |
| CBT | 0.14% | 0.02% |
| SFBS | 0.14% | 0.02% |
| MTRN | 0.16% | 0.02% |
| UCB | 0.13% | 0.02% |
Largest positions held only by IWM: MOGA (0.35%), CYTK (0.33%), GKOS (0.33%), EAT (0.33%), FROG (0.32%). Only by VIG: AVGO (4.65%), AAPL (4.47%), MSFT (4.35%), JPM (4.09%), LLY (3.94%).
Overlap = sum of the smaller of the two weights across common holdings, from issuer disclosures as of 2026-08-26. Top 15 common positions shown.
Year-by-year returns
| Year | IWM | VIG |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | -20.5% | -9.8% |
| 2023 | +16.8% | +14.5% |
| 2024 | +11.4% | +17.0% |
| 2025 | +12.7% | +14.2% |
| 2026 | +22.3% | +11.6% |
Calendar-year price returns; the current year is year-to-date as of the data date above.
Are IWM and VIG good diversifiers for each other?
No: a correlation of 0.82 means IWM and VIG tend to fall together, which is precisely when diversification is supposed to help.
FAQ
What is the correlation between IWM and VIG?
As of 2026-08-27, the correlation of weekly returns between IWM and VIG is 0.82 over 3 years, 0.79 over 1 year and 0.83 over 5 years.
Is VIG a good diversifier for IWM?
No: a correlation of 0.82 means IWM and VIG tend to fall together, which is precisely when diversification is supposed to help.
How much do IWM and VIG overlap?
The two funds share 87 holdings amounting to 1.0% of weight, per issuer portfolio files dated 2026-08-26.
Use this data
$ curl https://www.pairbook.io/api/v1/pairs/iwm-vs-vig.json
Markdown for the live badge, attribution link included:
[](https://www.pairbook.io/pair/iwm-vs-vig/)
Free with attribution; caching and terms are described in the API documentation.
Related comparisons
Hubs: IWM correlations · VIG correlations
