The iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Value ETF (NYSEMKT:ISCV) stands out for its low cost and higher yield, while iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF (NYSEMKT:IWN) has a longer track record, larger assets under management (AUM), and stronger recent returns, with each fund showing subtle differences in sector allocation and holdings concentration.
Both ISCV and IWN focus on U.S. small-cap value stocks, but they track different indexes and vary in cost, size, and market exposure. This comparison unpacks how their fees, performance, liquidity, risk, and portfolio construction stack up for investors considering small-cap value exposure.
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months.
From fees to fund size, subtle differences between ISCV and IWN may impact your approach to small-cap value investing.
The iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Value ETF (ISCV +0.34%) stands out for its low cost and higher yield, while iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF (IWN +0.57%) has a longer track record, larger assets under management (AUM), and stronger recent returns, with each fund showing subtle differences in sector allocation and holdings concentration.
Both ISCV and IWN focus on U.S. small-cap value stocks, but they track different indexes and vary in cost, size, and market exposure. This comparison unpacks how their fees, performance, liquidity, risk, and portfolio construction stack up for investors considering small-cap value exposure.
Snapshot (cost & size)
| Metric | IWN | ISCV |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.06% |
| 1-yr return (as of 2026-04-22) | 48.6% | 37.5% |
| Dividend yield | 1.5% | 1.9% |
| Beta | 1.03 | 1.01 |
| AUM | $13.4 billion | $644.5 million |
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months.
ISCV is notably more affordable than IWN, charging just 0.06% in annual fees compared to IWN’s 0.24%, and it also delivers a slightly higher payout with a 1.9% dividend yield versus 1.5% for IWN.
Performance & risk comparison
| Metric | IWN | ISCV |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown (5 y) | -26.71% | -25.34% |
| Growth of $1,000 over 5 years | $1,397 | $1,420 |
What’s inside
ISCV tracks a Morningstar index and has been around for nearly 22 years, holding about 1,072 stocks. Its portfolio leans toward financial services (21%), consumer cyclical (14%), and industrials (12%), with recent top holdings including Moderna (MRNA 2.21%), CF Industries (CF +0.38%), and Alcoa Corp (AA +0.80%). The fund’s size is relatively modest, which may contribute to its lower liquidity compared to larger competitors.
IWN, by contrast, is benchmarked to the Russell 2000 Value Index and spreads its assets across approximately 1,400 companies. Its sector mix is tilted a bit more toward financial services (24%), with notable exposures in industrials and healthcare. The top holdings — Echostar (SATS +2.64%), TTM Technologies (TTMI 5.01%), and Coeur Mining (CDE 1.48%) — comprise a small portion each, reflecting broad diversification. Both funds avoid leverage and complex overlays, offering straightforward small-cap value exposure.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
What this means for investors
Investing in undervalued small-cap stocks offers the opportunity for strong upside, and both the iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Value ETF (ISCV) and iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF (IWN) delivered this in their one-year returns. Choosing between them comes down to which fund best fits an investor’s portfolio priorities.
ISCV offers a higher dividend yield with a significantly lower expense ratio. Its more than 1,000 stocks gives it good diversification, but its far lower AUM limits liquidity. These factors make ISCV a good choice for investors who want to buy and hold for the long term.
IWN also provides broad exposure to small cap stocks given its over 1,000 equities, limiting downside risk from any one company. Financials make up about a quarter of its holdings with the second largest sector being industrials at 13%. Its greater AUM supplies high liquidity for active traders. However, its 0.24% expense ratio makes it much more expensive, particularly given it’s a passively-managed fund. IWN is the better choice for investors who trade frequently.
