HDV vs IWM: Complete Comparison

iShares Core High Dividend ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF โ€” overlap, correlation, performance & risk analysis

Holdings Overlap
0.37%
Very Low Overlap
Shared Holdings
6 of 74
Complete portfolio analysis
Calculation Method
Min Weight
Weighted intersection

Visual Overlap

HDV
IWM
0.4%
HDV Only
Overlap
IWM Only

Price Performance

Historical price comparison over 3M

HDV Return
+2.06%
IWM Return
+12.41%
Winner
IWM
+10.35%
Max Drawdown
HDV: -3.7%
IWM: -8.5%
HDV Volatility (annualized)9.00%
IWM Volatility (annualized)19.30%

๐Ÿ“ˆ Comparison

Metric
HDV
IWM
1 Year Return
+15.8%
+18.5%โœ“
3 Year Return
+7.2%โœ“
+4.2%
5 Year Return
+10.5%
+10.5%
Volatility
16.50%โœ“
24.80%
Expense Ratio
0.08%โœ“
0.19%
โš ๏ธ Past performance does not guarantee future results. Data may be delayed.

โš ๏ธRisk Metrics

Metric
HDV
IWM
Volatility
16.50%โœ“
24.80%
Sharpe Ratio
0.58โœ“
0.38
Sortino Ratio
0.78โœ“
0.52
Max Drawdown
-35.50%โœ“
-41.50%
Beta
0.82
1.25

Interpretation:

  • ๐Ÿ“Š Lower volatility = smoother ride
  • โšก Higher Sharpe/Sortino = better risk-adjusted returns
  • โš ๏ธ Smaller max drawdown = less worst-case pain
  • ๐Ÿ“ˆ Beta > 1 = more volatile than S&P 500

โš”๏ธ Comparison

7 - 10

๐Ÿ† IWM wins this comparison

Key Factors

๐Ÿ’ฐ Expense Ratio
HDV:0.08%โœ“
vs
IWM:0.19%โœ“
๐ŸŽฏ Number of Holdings
HDV:75 holdingsโœ“
vs
IWM:1,983 holdingsโœ“
๐Ÿ“ˆ 5-Year Return
HDV:+10.5%
vs
IWM:+10.5%
โ–ถAdditional Metrics (5)
โš–๏ธ Concentration Risk
HDV: 53.2% in top 10
IWM: 5.3% in top 10โœ“
๐Ÿ“Š Assets Under Management
HDV: $10B
IWM: $60B โœ“โœ“
โšก Sharpe Ratio
HDV: 0.58โœ“
IWM: 0.38
๐Ÿ“‰ Volatility
HDV: 16.5%โœ“
IWM: 24.8%
๐Ÿ” Uniqueness vs SPY
HDV: 89.3% unique
IWM: 100.0% uniqueโœ“

Bottom line: IWM wins with better number of holdings. Consider IWM for your portfolio, but HDV is still a solid choice if you prefer its specific advantages.

Detailed Overlap Analysis

6 shared holdings representing 0.4% portfolio overlap

Top Shared Holdings

#StockHDV WeightIWM WeightOverlap
1
ALE
ALE
0.09%0.14%0.09%
2
NJR
NJR
0.08%0.16%0.08%
3
MC
MC
0.08%0.14%0.08%
4
MGY
MGY
0.05%0.15%0.05%
5
AWR
AWR
0.04%0.09%0.04%
6
CNS
CNS
0.03%0.06%0.03%

Overlap by Sector

Other
6 stocks ยท 0.37% overlap

Showing top 5 sectors by overlap contribution

6
Shared Stocks
0.4%
Total Overlap
1
Sectors Represented

Top Holdings Only in HDV

Unique to HDV

โ†Scroll horizontally to see all dataโ†’
SymbolNameWeight
XOMXOM8.90%
JNJJNJ7.09%
CVXCVX6.26%
ABBVABBV6.16%
MRKMRK4.64%

Top Holdings Only in IWM

Unique to IWM

โ†Scroll horizontally to see all dataโ†’
SymbolNameWeight
CRDOCREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP HOLDING LTD0.86%
BEBLOOM ENERGY CLASS A CORP0.80%
FNFABRINET0.62%
IONQIONQ INC0.51%
NXTNEXTPOWER INC CLASS A0.44%

Price Correlation

How We Calculate Overlap

We use the minimum weight method with normalization to calculate portfolio overlap:

Overlap = ฮฃ min(weightA, weightB) for each shared holding

Normalization: Holdings weights are normalized to sum to 100% before comparison. This ensures accurate overlap calculations even when analyzing partial holdings data (e.g., top 50 positions).

Conservative approach: We consider only the smaller allocation for each shared position, giving you a realistic view of true portfolio overlap.

๐Ÿ“Š This analysis is based on publicly available holdings data. For the most current and complete holdings information, please visit the official ETF provider websites.

Related Articles

Compare More ETFs