IWM vs VTV: Correlation & Overlap
iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Vanguard Value ETF (VTV) show a very strong relationship: their 3-year correlation of weekly returns is 0.85. By holdings, the two funds overlap 0% by weight.
Data as of 2026-08-27 · refreshed every trading day · weekly returns · methodology
How correlated are IWM and VTV?
On 3 years of weekly data the IWM/VTV correlation comes out at 0.85, very strong, meaning they move nearly in lockstep. The relationship has been stable: the 1-year correlation (0.76) sits close to the 3-year figure. The 5-year figure is 0.84, and annualized covariance runs at 200.0 %².
Within IWM's tracked universe of 320 assets, VTV comes in at #5 by 3-year correlation. Twelve-month performance is nearly a tie, at +28.4% for IWM and +25.7% for VTV. Stability stands out here, with the rolling one-year correlation confined to 0.77 through 0.91. Note the risk asymmetry: IWM runs 1.7 times the annualized volatility of the other leg, so equal-weighting the two is not an equal-risk position.
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 VTV: side by side
| IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) | VTV (Vanguard Value ETF) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-year return | +28.4% | +25.7% |
| 5-year return | +41.5% | +79.1% |
| Volatility (ann.) | 19.8% | 11.9% |
| Beta vs S&P 500 | 1.06 | 0.65 |
| Max drawdown (3Y) | -27.5% | -14.5% |
| Dividend yield | 0.91% | 1.86% |
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.03% |
| Assets under management | $80.1B | $256.4B |
| Sector / category | ETF · US Small & Mid Cap | ETF · US Style |
IWM, iShares's Small Blend fund, carries $80.1B under management, 1757 holdings, a 0.19% expense ratio, a 0.91% trailing dividend yield. On the fund side, VTV sits in the Large Value category at Vanguard, with $256.4B under management, 308 holdings, a 0.03% expense ratio, a 1.86% trailing dividend yield.
Portfolio overlap between IWM and VTV
The two portfolios are largely distinct: 0% of the funds' weight sits in the same underlying holdings (0 common positions). Correlation tells you they move together; overlap tells you why.
Largest positions held only by IWM: MOGA (0.35%), UMBF (0.34%), CYTK (0.33%), GKOS (0.33%), EAT (0.33%). Only by VTV: JPM (3.51%), MU (3.46%), BRK.B (2.99%), XOM (2.40%), JNJ (2.30%).
Overlap = sum of the smaller of the two weights across common holdings, from issuer disclosures as of 2026-08-26.
Year-by-year returns
| Year | IWM | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | -20.5% | -2.1% |
| 2023 | +16.8% | +9.3% |
| 2024 | +11.4% | +16.0% |
| 2025 | +12.7% | +15.3% |
| 2026 | +22.3% | +19.3% |
Calendar-year price returns; the current year is year-to-date as of the data date above.
Are IWM and VTV good diversifiers for each other?
No: a correlation of 0.85 means IWM and VTV tend to fall together, which is precisely when diversification is supposed to help.
FAQ
What is the correlation between IWM and VTV?
Using weekly returns as of 2026-08-27: 0.85 over 3 years, with 0.76 over the last year and 0.84 over 5 years.
Is VTV a good diversifier for IWM?
No: a correlation of 0.85 means IWM and VTV tend to fall together, which is precisely when diversification is supposed to help.
How much do IWM and VTV overlap?
The two funds share 0 holdings amounting to 0% of weight, per issuer portfolio files dated 2026-08-26.
Use this data
$ curl https://www.pairbook.io/api/v1/pairs/iwm-vs-vtv.json
Markdown for the live badge, attribution link included:
[](https://www.pairbook.io/pair/iwm-vs-vtv/)
Free with attribution; caching and terms are described in the API documentation.
Related comparisons
Hubs: IWM correlations · VTV correlations
