IWM vs XLV: Correlation & Overlap
iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) and Health Care Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLV) show a moderate relationship: their 3-year correlation of weekly returns is 0.47. Looking through to holdings, 0% of the two portfolios is the same by weight.
Data as of 2026-08-27 · refreshed every trading day · weekly returns · methodology
How correlated are IWM and XLV?
Across a 3-year window, the weekly returns of IWM and XLV correlate at 0.47, moderate. The link has loosened recently: the 1-year correlation (0.26) runs below the 3-year figure (0.47). Stretching to 5 years gives 0.54, with an annualized covariance of 138.2 %².
By 3-year correlation, XLV places #268 of the 320 assets tracked against IWM. Twelve-month performance is nearly a tie, at +28.4% for IWM and +27.5% for XLV. On a rolling one-year basis the correlation drifted between 0.33 and 0.62, a moderate band.
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 XLV: side by side
| IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) | XLV (Health Care Select Sector SPDR Fund) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-year return | +28.4% | +27.5% |
| 5-year return | +41.5% | +37.4% |
| Volatility (ann.) | 19.8% | 14.7% |
| Beta vs S&P 500 | 1.06 | 0.42 |
| Max drawdown (3Y) | -27.5% | -17.1% |
| Dividend yield | 0.91% | 1.56% |
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.08% |
| Assets under management | $80.1B | $41.7B |
| Sector / category | ETF · US Small & Mid Cap | Sector ETF |
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, XLV sits in the Health category at State Street Investment Management, with $41.7B under management, 61 holdings, a 0.08% expense ratio, a 1.56% trailing dividend yield.
Portfolio overlap between IWM and XLV
The two portfolios are largely distinct, with 0 holdings in common adding up to 0% of fund weight. Where correlation shows the co-movement, the overlap shows its source.
Largest positions held only by IWM: MOGA (0.35%), UMBF (0.34%), CYTK (0.33%), GKOS (0.33%), EAT (0.33%). Only by XLV: LLY (15.03%), JNJ (10.38%), ABBV (7.42%), MRK (6.04%), UNH (5.82%).
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 | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | -20.5% | -2.1% |
| 2023 | +16.8% | +2.1% |
| 2024 | +11.4% | +2.5% |
| 2025 | +12.7% | +14.5% |
| 2026 | +22.3% | +11.8% |
Calendar-year price returns; the current year is year-to-date as of the data date above.
Are IWM and XLV good diversifiers for each other?
Reasonably. At 0.47, IWM and XLV keep a meaningful degree of independence, and combining them has historically reduced portfolio volatility.
FAQ
What is the correlation between IWM and XLV?
As of 2026-08-27, the correlation of weekly returns between IWM and XLV is 0.47 over 3 years, 0.26 over 1 year and 0.54 over 5 years.
Is XLV a good diversifier for IWM?
Reasonably. At 0.47, IWM and XLV keep a meaningful degree of independence, and combining them has historically reduced portfolio volatility.
How much do IWM and XLV overlap?
Per the issuers' own portfolio disclosures (2026-08-26), the overlap is 0% by weight over 0 common positions.
Use this data
$ curl https://www.pairbook.io/api/v1/pairs/iwm-vs-xlv.json
Drop this badge in a README or notebook; it updates with the data:
[](https://www.pairbook.io/pair/iwm-vs-xlv/)
Free with attribution; caching and terms are described in the API documentation.
Related comparisons
Hubs: IWM correlations · XLV correlations
