Verified factor-similar pair

ISCG vs IWM

These two ETFs pass the same FF6 US similarity lane: US-listed equity ETFs, same USD model basis, at least one material non-market factor, and 100% overlap in statistically significant material factor exposure.

SMB
Similarity score
80
Verified similar

Score blends exposure-level distance, factor-vector shape, market-beta closeness, and a small backtested relative-Sharpe term.

ISCG

iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF
SMB
Adj. R2
0.960
Rel. Sharpe
0.712
Mkt beta
1.04
AUM
US$908M
MER
0.06%
Valuation
96

IWM

iShares Russell 2000 ETF
SMB
Adj. R2
0.986
Rel. Sharpe
0.785
Mkt beta
1.02
AUM
US$73.2B
MER
0.19%
Valuation
136

Factor Exposure Match

Blue bars compare raw factor beta magnitude. Green bars compare absolute t-stat strength. Dim bars indicate the t-stat is below 1.96.

SMB
ISCG
+0.79
|t|
+24.9
IWM
+0.82
|t|
+50.5
diff -0.02
HML
ISCG
-0.24
|t|
-7.9
IWM
+0.10
|t|
+6.2
diff -0.35
RMW
ISCG
-0.18
|t|
-4.5
IWM
-0.07
|t|
-4.0
diff -0.10
CMA
ISCG
-0.06
|t|
-1.2
IWM
-0.00
|t|
-0.1
diff -0.05
UMD
ISCG
+0.09
|t|
+4.9
IWM
+0.04
|t|
+3.9
diff +0.05

Why This Pair Matches

Exposure level
75
Exposure shape
95
Mkt beta diff
0.02
Rel. Sharpe diff
0.073

This comparison focuses on measured factor exposure, not a qualitative review of each fund's portfolio-construction process. Backtested relative Sharpe is included as a secondary signal, while we continue refining a comparison metric that separates factor payoff from alpha. See methodology.

ISCG fund page IWM fund page US ETF Leaders US Universe
Important context

VerifiedBeta publishes educational ETF research, not personalized investment advice, portfolio management, or security recommendations. Funds that screen well here can still be unsuitable for your objectives, taxes, liquidity needs, or constraints. Review fund documents, methodology assumptions, and your own circumstances before acting. See the full disclaimer.