iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) vs Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC)
Over the past 10 years, MMC outperformed IWM — 13.86% vs 11.12% annualized total return (price plus dividends).
A side-by-side comparison of iShares Russell 2000 ETF and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. across valuation, profitability, dividends, and growth — built entirely from reported fundamentals, as of June 14, 2026. The ● marks the stronger figure on each row (cheaper multiple, higher margin/return).
Total return — IWM vs MMC
growth of $100 · last 26yDid MMC beat IWM?
Over the past 10 years, MMC outperformed IWM — 13.86% vs 11.12% annualized total return (price plus dividends).
Total return (annualized)
| Metric | IWM | MMC |
|---|---|---|
| Total return (1Y) | 39.19%● | -23.36% |
| Total return CAGR (3Y) | 17.68%● | 1.49% |
| Total return CAGR (5Y) | 6.07% | 10.12%● |
| Total return CAGR (10Y) | 11.12% | 13.86%● |
IWM is an index fund, so valuation, profitability, and per-company growth metrics don't apply — the head-to-head here is total return (price plus reinvested dividends).
Frequently asked
- Has MMC beaten IWM?
- Over the past 10 years, MMC outperformed IWM — 13.86% vs 11.12% annualized total return (price plus dividends).
Figures are sourced from reported fundamentals and the latest end-of-day price. This comparison is informational only and is not investment advice. Past performance does not predict future results. See our methodology. Compiled by TGMCharts Research · data verified June 14, 2026.